Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

LAND COMMISSION

Mr. Speaker: I think that It is the feeling of the House that we might have a general debate on all the Prayers that are before us this morning. I must point out, however, that we cannot debate today Motion No. 20 which is on the Order Paper for tomorrow.

Mr. Rippon: It would be convenient, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, to discuss not only the Prayers but the Government Motions. I understand that there is a difficulty about notice to withdraw but, of course, it is part of the substance of our argument that the Regulations should be annulled because the appointed day is too soon. I imagine that a general debate will be acceptable.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to make his comment about the appointed day tomorrow. We cannot discuss this morning what is on tomorrow's Order Paper. I know that it is rather difficult.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I gather from what you have said, Mr. Speaker, that it would be in order to deal with any of the issues raised either on the Government's Motions or on the Opposition Prayers—for example, the rate of levy.

Mr. Speaker: We can debate everything except Motion No. 20, which is on the Order Paper for tomorrow. Perhaps I can help the House. If we proceed tomorrow—and I understand that the debate may pass over to tomorrow—Motion No. 20 will become part of the discussion.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Frederick Wiley): It might assist the House, Mr. Speaker, if I say that the Government would not mind a passing reference to the fact that these provisions all come into effect on 6th April.

Mr. Speaker: What the Government would or would not mind is not a matter for the Chair. This is purely a question of order.

NATIONAL DISASTER FUND

10.7 a.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a National Fund of a permanent nature to be available to those who suffer in any designated disaster; and for connected purposes.
I realise that in framing such legislation, certain important principles have to be reconciled. The first is to maintain what I would describe as the spontaneity of the moment so as in no way to discourage the generous instincts of members of the public who, faced with a national tragedy, wish to subscribe to a particular disaster fund. The second is to preserve the widest possible degree of local initiative. The third is to prevent money from being frozen in a charitable fund or trust in the event of its being over-subscribed. The fourth is to create a central fund, capable of making immediate grants for relief and thereby removing the present delay between the occurrence of the disaster and the successful launching of an appeal. The need is greatest within hours of the tragedy occurring.
Disaster funds may run into very large sums of money. The Lord Mayor's Fund for the East Coast Disaster in 1953 reached about £5 million and the Aberfan Fund has already reached £1½ million. On the Central Register of the Charity Commissioners are recorded countless disaster funds, ranging from numerous mining disasters to lifeboat and lightship disasters. Some are very old indeed and cover every form of tragedy in this century.
One colliery explosion fund, launched in 1910, still has £19,000; another has £200,000; the Titanic Disaster Fund, launched in 1912, was wound up two years ago. It is true, of course, that many funds have to make continuing provision for contingent liabilities—fot example, towards dependants and possibly future dependants.
It is also true that, under the Charities Act, 1960, the Charity Commissioners


have a slightly greater discretion to enlarge the scope of charitable funds, but the cy près doctrine is such that the enlarged objectives have to be as close as possible to the original purpose and the money cannot be used for general charitable purposes. Often, references are made to the courts at great expense and the litigation is frequently protracted. The Lynton-Lynmouth Fund, launched in 1953 to deal with the tragedy in my constituency, was the subject of High Court proceedings. Fortunately that fund now has been completely spent. The Chatham, Gillingham and Rochester Fund to make provision for the 27 Royal Marine cadets who were killed involved litigation stretching over 13 years to decide what should happen to the residue of that fund, and, indeed, the litigation absorbed half the balance.
What I seek to do is, first, to set up a national disaster fund, which I suggest should be administered by the Charity Commissioners, who would submit an annual report to Parliament. Second, in cases where the Secretary of State certifies that an event or happening constitutes a national disaster, a certificate to that effect should be published in the London Gazette. The effect would be that a local authority in the afflicted area would have the right to make an immediate call upon the fund and would still have continuing rights to launch a local appeal. Third, at the end of a specified period, which I suggest might be two years, any surplus remaining in the fund should be transferred to the central disaster fund. This would take charge of any continuing obligations, for example, possible future commitments for dependants and future dependants. In many cases, funds have had to be kept going not because there is money which has to be paid out but because of the possibility of claims being made in the future.
I do not think that it is right to expect a mayor to act in perpetuity as the administrator or trustee of a disaster fund, and, therefore, it would be wise in those cases, after a designated period, to transfer any surplus to a central fund. I am certain that that would meet with the approval of the general public. It has been a matter which has been debated at party conferences, I think first

at the Labour Party Conference in 1934. The Nathan Committee on Charitable Trusts went into it in some detail in 1952. If the general public were consulted, I am certain that it would be agreed that this is the sort of formula which would combine the factors of which I have spoken. They want to show sympathy with victims of a disaster, but, should the fund be oversubscribed, to make any surplus available to others who may suffer misfortune in the future.
I am aware that this is a complicated matter touching upon the law relating to trusts and the administration of charities. I have been fortunate in getting wide support from all quarters of the House, and I am specially grateful to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who is here and to the other sponsors of the Bill who have agreed to support me. I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce it and give it a First Reading.
This may be a case where, after discussions with the Ministers of the Crown whose Departments are involved, the C.C.A., the A.M.C., the Red Cross and the Charity Commissioners and, assuming that the House agrees to the general principle, the House might agree to a formal Second Reading and then send it to a Committee.
There is great public disquiet on this matter. I believe a measure of this sort is long overdue and, therefore, I beg leave to introduce this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Sir Geoffrey de Freitas, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mrs. Anne Kerr, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Sir Gerald Nabarro, Mr. Duncan Sandys, Dame Joan Vickers, Mr. Richard Wainwright, and Mr. Richard Wood.

National Disaster Fund

Bill to provide for a National Fund of a permanent nature to be available to those who suffer in any designated disaster; and for connected purposes, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th May and to be printed. [Bill 216.]

LAND COMMISSION

10.15 a.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Frederick Willey): I beg to move,
That the Betterment Levy (Prescribed Rate) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you be good enough to clarify one point in the Ruling which you gave earlier? As I understand it, you told the House that hon. Members could discuss the Government Motions and Prayers this morning but not the Motion in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) on the appointed day. If an hon. Member has the good fortune to catch your eye this morning, on that Ruling, he will not be entitled to refer to the appointed day. Does that mean that an hon. Member who wishes to raise that issue and who has spoken this morning on the issue limited to the Prayers and the Motions, will require the leave of the House to make a speech tomorrow morning relating to the appointed day?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that he will require the leave of the House. However, in the unusual circumstances, it might be possible that the House would give him that leave.

Mr. Willey: Mr. Speaker, as you have indicated, it will meet with the convenience of the House to discuss with this Order the following Motions to approve Regulations and the Prayers in the names of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). They all relate to the coming into operation of the Land Commission and the betterment levy, and they all come into effect on 6th April.
None of these provisions has occasioned any surprise; nor have the reactions of right hon. and hon. Members opposite occasioned my surprise. In most cases, the provisions of the Regulations have been anticipated during our discussions on the Bill at various stages, and they are consequential upon the Land Commission itself or declarations of intent which were made during consideration of the Bill.
That is certainly true of the Order which I have just moved, which is probably the most important. That prescribes the rate of the betterment levy at 40 per cent. Certainly that will not surprise anyone because, as long ago as September, 1965, it was said in the White Paper that the betterment levy would be prescribed at
an initial rate of 40 per cent, which in the Government's view is a modest rate leaving ample incentive to owners to offer their land for development.
It went on to declare
the Government's intention to increase the rate progressively to 45 per cent, and then to 50 per cent, at reasonably short intervals.
It said also:
The question of increasing the rate further will be examined as acquisitions by the Commission, and thus their ability to provide land for development, increase.
I remain convinced that 40 per cent, is a modest rate. It has not attracted any serious criticism and seems to be generally acceptable.
That is equally true of the second of the Motions dealing with the Material Development Regulations. That has caused no surprise. It closely follows the full statement which I made in Standing Committee on 4th August last year. This, in effect, provides for exemptions from the levy. Again it is generally welcomed because, by and large, it makes a more generous provision for exemption than was made in the case of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.
There has been a good deal of misrepresentation about this, but I think that the publication which we have issued recently has gone a long way to correct this misinterpretation of the Act. For instance, it is widely known that the rebuilding of a house, providing it does not increase the floor area by more than 10 per cent. or 1,000 sq. ft., whichever is greater, is exempt from levy; that improving, altering or extending a house, including adding a garage, providing it does not increase the floor area by more than 10 per cent. or 1,000 sq. ft. whichever is greater, again is exempt from levy; that turning a house into flats is exempt from levy; that the rebuilding of any other building except a house, providing it does not increase either the cubic content or floor space by more than 10 per cent. or, in the case of an


industrial building, by more than 5,000 sq. ft. is exempt from levy; and that the erection of any building necessary for farming on agricultural land, except for big isolated factory farming units, again is exempt from levy.
I have given those illustrations because there has been a good deal of misrepresentation of the provisions which we are making.
In the case of advertisements, however, the provisions are more limited. This is a matter which was discussed thoroughly during the proceedings on the Bill. Sites for hoardings are not exempt. Broadly, under the first paragraph of the Schedule, only minor advertising is exempt; that is, only advertising which may be displayed without express consent under the 1960 Regulations. The third Government Motion—the Minerals Regulations—again has been thoroughly discussed during the proceedings on the Bill. They deal, as I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House appreciate, with a particularly difficult aspect of development. It is difficult because minerals are a wasting asset, and it is more easy to pass on levy in the form of extra price—for instance, price per ton of gravel—to the consumer.
I call attention to two factors. First, we provide that all mining leases are notifiable. They are compulsorily notifiable even though they are for less than seven years. This is because of the modern methods of extraction. Second, a substantial exemption is provided for the mineral operator in Regulation 11.
Having said that these provisions occasioned me no surprise, I should say that this particular one has occasioned me surprise, because there are three printing slips in the Minerals Regulations. All of them are cross-references. As these are draft Regulations, I would ask for the permission of the House to correct them as printing errors when the Regulations are printed.
The fourth Motion concerns the Case F General Regulations. Again, this closely follows the statement I made about the effect of these Regulations when we discussed this matter during the proceedings on the Bill.
Again, they contain nothing unexpected. They provide for three cases: first, the

renewal or extension of tenancies or variation of the terms and conditions of tenancies where it makes it possible to realise the development value by releasing or modifying some previous restriction on development—that is, cases comparable to those in Case B. Second, the grant of wayleaves to Government Departments or statutory undertaker—that is comparable to Case E. Finally, there are the cases where there are rights of compensation for depreciation under the Statutes set out in the Schedule. They correspond to Case D.
There are also supplementary Regulations and Credit from Case F Regulations. I should explain why it is necessary to have separate Regulations. We have not included them in a single Case F Regulation, because the powers for those two additional Regulations derive not from Section 35 but from Schedule 7 and Schedule 5.
The other provisions are not unexpected. The most difficult and complicated are Tenancies and Reversions Regulations. Several Regulations are procedural, those providing for notification, those providing for vesting declaration in accordance with Sections 9 and 21, the Development Plan (Specification) Regulation, which are pursuant to Section 6, subsection (3)—these are necessary because they deal with subordinate legislation—the Expenditure Regulations which avoid the double allowance for expenditure on improvements and ancillary rights, and the Waiver of Interest Regulations which are pursuant to Section 51. These follow an undertaking which we gave in Standing Committee, that the collection of the levy would be postponed in the case of factory extensions, agricultural dwelling houses, development under a time limited-planning permission, indoor sports buildings, and where the interest charged is a reversionary interest.
As we have agreed to the postponement of the levy, it would be unfair—in fact, it would make the postponement of little value—if meanwhile, interest was charged, and so, by these Regulations, we provide for the waiver of interest in these cases where the collection of the levy will be postponed.
The National Coal Board Regulations are necessary to define operational land in the case of the National Coal Board.
There is also the Rate of Interest Order. I am happy to say that as the Bank Rate has now been reduced, the reduction of the rate of interest is a matter which we are at present considering.
I have briefly introduced these provisions. I have not dealt with them comprehensively, because many are subject to Prayer, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and, if necessary, with leave, I myself, will reply to points raised on them. I have emphasised that none of them is unexpected. All have been previously discussed during our proceedings on the Bill. I do not think that any of them are controversial in the sense that they go beyond what is expected of the Land Commission Act.

Mr. Graham Page: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the details of these Motions, he told us that in the case of the betterment levy tenancy and reversions Regulations there were some printing errors. I do not ask him to go through them in detail now, but could he furnish hon. Members on this side of the House with a corrected copy before the end of the debate? We may not think that they are just printing errors. I do not blame Her Majesty's Stationery Office for getting fed up with all these Orders. I have one before me, where they have skipped from pages 2 to 7 and from pages 10 to 15—that is the tenancies and reversions Order. I do not blame Her Majesty's Stationery Office, with 22 Orders, for getting fed up.

Mr. Wiley: The hon. Gentleman has failed to pay attention to what I said. I was referring to the Minerals Regulations when I said that there were three printing errors regarding cross-references. I will let the hon. Member and his right hon. Friend have these immediately. They are merely printing errors in cross references. I commend this Order and the following Motions to the House.

10.27 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: We are grateful to the Minister of State for introducing the Regulations and the Order in this way. I quite understand why he has done so briefly. If he had attempted really to explain what has happened, he would have taken the whole of the two day debate. What we have to consider today and tomorrow afternoon

and night, and what the public and the professions have to master, are no fewer than 22 Orders and Regulations amounting to 150 pages of complex detail, give or take a page or two left out by the printers. Some of those Regulations were laid as recently as 14th March and 16th March, and there are more to come.
I do not think that there is anyone in this House or outside who does not by now know that the Opposition are committed to repeal the Land Commission Act, which we think is incompatible with the needs of the nation, incomprehensible to the ordinary man or woman, and to most, if not all, experts will prove unworkable, will put up the price of houses, and will paralyse, as it is paralysing now, the land market. At the same time, we have to accept, today and tomorrow, that we have to live with this Act for the time being, and we shall try to make it operate with the minimum of difficulty and damage. Therefore—in any event, I must do so—I readily accept that we must proceed now on the assumption that this Act comes into force on 6th April.
What the Government must understand is that these Orders and Regulations, so recently laid, and which are to come into operation on 6th April, cannot, with the best will in the world, be mastered within that time by the people who have to operate them. We are therefore asking the Government to reconsider the date on which these Orders and Regulations are to be brought into operation, and to withdraw them for further study and comment. We on this side of the House have many detailed criticisms of the Regulations and Orders and I shall deal with some of them in due course.
Meanwhile, we have a completely crazy situation in this country in which developers who are lucky enough to have planning permission are desperately digging away to try to avoid the liability to pay the levy. Others are besieging, or should I say beseeching, local planning authorities to give them planning permission so that they can start digging before 6th April. I think that some local authorities are to keep their staffs working over Easter to try to help.
In those circumstances, and with so much genuine doubt about what the law is under the Act, and what it will be


under this great batch of Orders and Regulations, or what it might be after the next batch to come, perhaps some of them before 6th April, it really is foolish for the Government to press ahead with this great wadge of legislation heedless of the consequences. It seems as though the Minister's spiritual home is the last ditch dug before 6th April.
In spite of the volume of Regulations, there remain numerous matters of doubt on which no guidance is available and we cannot find it in these Orders and Regulations. The Finance Bill in particular will have to provide for the interaction between, first, the levy and the Capital Gains Tax, and, secondly, between the levy and Income Tax and Surtax on land profits. The Minister referred to an initial development levy of 40 per cent., but this is not the whole story from the point of view of the land traders. The tax will be much more of the order of 64 per cent., or even over 70 per cent. if it is a close company, and the position is worse when the levy is increased, as the Minister suggested it might be, in a short period.
We have to consider, too, the interaction between the levy and the short-term gains tax. We also have to consider the interaction between the levy and the tax on rents and premiums in connection with leases. It may be that we should be arguing that the Finance Bill should be introduced before 6th April so that we can know what the position will be under the Act and under these Orders and Regulations.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must come to the Regulations.

Mr. Rippon: We have said that the only thing to do is to deal with all this together. We are concerned not only about what is in the Regulations, but what is not in them. We want them to be withdrawn, partly because we think they are very bad Orders and Regulations and ought to be amended, and partly because we think that other matters ought to be added for the avoidance of difficulty.
For instance, the matters with which these Regulations and Orders ought to deal, and which—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, this

is a very broad debate, but it is not broad enough to include amending the Regulations.

Mr. Rippon: I hope that it is broad enough to allow us to argue that the Regulations ought to be annulled so that new and better Regulations can be brought in in their place. We are asking for them to be annulled not only because some of them are, or will be, objectionable, but because they will not enable people to know what the law will be under them unless they are suitably amended.
For instance, the Regulations say nothing about the principles on which crownhold and concessionary crownhold dispositions are to be made, or how the Commission will dispose of land which it buys or acquires. Above all, a number of people are concerned that these Orders and Regulations—unless I have misread them—do not set out the circumstances in which the Commission will allow the payment of levy to be postponed or to be paid by instalments.
Some difficulties have already arisen. First, the builder does not know how slow the Commission will be in telling him when he will have to pay the 40 per cent., levy. The Order is silent on this. All we know is that the Act provides for a period of six years. On the other hand, the Commission may be too quick in asking for the levy, and the builder may be called on to pay the levy before he has sold the houses which he has erected. On both these matters some guidance ought to be given in the Regulations.
Thirdly—and if I have misread the Regulations perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will tell me whether it is, in fact, included—we have no guidance on the principles on which exemption from levy will be granted or refused under Section 59, which deals with the housing associations, or the circumstances under which a direction may be made under Section 60 which deals with exemptions from levy under Case C if approved by the Commission.
Fourthly, regulations are still required under Section 63, which gives the general power to grant additional exemptions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us whether the exemptions in this batch of Regulations and Orders


represent the limit. Fifthly, perhaps he can tell us when we are to get the regulations dealing with equitable interests and estate duty.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): Mr. Speaker, I should like your guidance. I am anxious to be at the service of the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has asked about Section 63. I do not think that this Section as such comes into any of these Orders, although we have made some statements about this, including during the debate raised by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). I do not want to be discourteous, but I wonder whether you would say how far my right hon. Friend or I would be in order in replying to this point—or others—which I do not think is specifically covered in the Regulations and Orders.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member. This is a difficulty. I must rule, as I rule for all debates on Orders, that the debate must be confined to the Orders and Regulations themselves. I cannot object to the passing reference which the right hon. and learned Member has made, but we cannot widen the debate too far.

Mr. Rippon: I shall say no more about Section 63. I accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that it is not covered.
The Minister referred, I thought with some pride, to the guidance which has been given in the leaflets and booklets issued by his Ministry. This guidance, up to a point, covers the Regulations, as far as the printers can keep up with the flow anyway. Some of them are referred to, but not others. But such guidance as exists on these matters is dangerous misleading or inadequate, and the public should be warned against these so-called "child guides". They contain their own warning, but this can be missed by anybody relying on apparently straightforward statements.
For example, there is this little green booklet entitled "Land Commission and You" which starts by saying:
There are about one million land transactions every year in Great Britain. Only a small proportion—perhaps 10 to 15 per cent.—is likely to be affected by the Land Commission

which begins to function on 6th April 1967. That is manifestly an inaccurate statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. and learned Member will help. The general feeling of the House is that we can have a wide debate, but that width is not unlimited. I should have thought that in the Orders and Regulations before us we had scope for a very wide debate.

Mr. Rippon: I understand, Mr. Speaker, I am very anxious not to have to ask the leave of the House to speak again tomorrow on what might be technically a wider Motion, but what we have to consider in relation to these 22 Orders and Regulations is how far the public will be able to understand them by the date on which they come into operation.
There is some guidance on the Orders and Regulations in the leaflets and booklets which have been put out by the Ministry, but I feel it my duty on behalf of the Opposition to warn the public that they cannot rely on the guidance in these booklets, because if these Orders and Regulations are approved there will be something to be added which may very much affect the guidance which has been given.
Many more people will be affected than may be realised. It is not a question of 10–15 per cent.—150,000 transactions a year, and probably more, as a result of the Leasehold Reform Bill; it is every transaction which has to be notified. Every person concerned with a land transaction—and not just those who have to pay the levy—is concerned with what is in these Orders and Regulations, and they should be able to understand them. They should not be misled into thinking that only a comparatively small number of people are affected.
Then we have the Guide for Builders and Developers on the Betterment Levy and the Guide for Estate Agents and Surveyors on the Betterment Levy. These also refer to what may happen under the Orders and Regulations, on the assumption that they are approved. But people are being expected to make decisions on the basis of declarations that in certain circumstances no levy will be payable. What must be understood is that people who may spend thousands of pounds in


transactions will have to understand in detail the contents of these Regulations and Orders, covering about 150 pages of legal jargon.
On the first page of the Guide for Estate Agents and Surveyors it is said that
it is intended only to be a guide to the Act and not a legally binding interpretation of it.
It says that it should often enable advisers to avoid detailed references to the Act in dealing with day-to-day matters. In other words, it suggests that the Orders and Regulations should be examined only when one is in a mess. That is exactly comparable to people being involved in a building contract saying, "We never looked at it until there was a dispute." It must be understood that if people take action without having studied not only the law as it stands but the law as it will be if these Regulations and Orders are approved, they may be in grave difficulty.

Mr. Willey: On a point of order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the effect of these publications, and has done so in a quite outrageous way. I understood that our debate on these Orders and Regulations was confined to their content. If I had realised that there was to be a general debate on the publications to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred I would have dealt with them in my speech.

Mr. Speaker: I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument to be that the complexity of these Orders and Regulations in some way invalidated the explanatory documents which have gone before.

Mr. Willey: So far the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not made that point. He has dealt at large with those publications. His quotation has no reference to these Orders and Regulations.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that we shall not get bogged down on points of procedure in this useful debate. That means that there must be good will by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon) must try to keep within the rules of order.

Mr. Rippon: I am trying very hard, Mr. Speaker. I say that the Government should withdraw these guides and amend them in the light of these Orders and Regulations.

Mr. Speaker: That is out of order.

Mr. Rippon: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to improve my position, but I have obviously made it worse.
It is the same with the off-yellow booklet—the Betterment Levy Explanatory Memorandum—which says:
This memorandum will be supplemented by practice notes issued by the Land Commission itself from time to time and should not be considered, therefore, a comprehensive guide to the Act in itself.
We do not have their practice notes. It goes on to say a number of other things to which I will not refer but which I might otherwise have sought to challenge. What are the Government going to do to bring these booklets up to date, and, above all, to explain to the public what these Orders and Regulations mean?
That is the last thing that I shall say about that matter, because it is right that I should move on. We have these guides, which are dangerously inadequate; we have professional guidance, which is limited; we do not have the Finance Bill which is unavailable, and we do not have the practice notes which are also unavailable. It is against this background that we ask the Government at least to withdraw these 22 Orders and Regulations in order that professional and other bodies can comment on them.
It may be that the Chinese mathematicians in the basement of the Ministry can understand these Statutory Instruments. For some intellectuals they may make a change from The Times crossword puzzle. But they require hours of patient and intense study before 6th April. I am told that I have understated the position, and that they will require weeks of study. No wonder some professional men are paying up to 30 guineas for two-day crash courses of lectures in order to know where they will stand by 6th April.
With those few introductory remarks, I turn to the Orders and Regulations themselves. I shall not comment on every one but I want to say something about the


Betterment Levy (Prescribed Rate) Order. The Minister referred to this as imposing a modest rate of 40 per cent. I hope that he will indicate that that 40 per cent. is already in no sense the limit of taxation on these transactions, and will give a clearer indication than he gave in opening of when he imagines the levy will be raised, first to 45 per cent. and then to 50 per cent. I hope that he will also give an undertaking that it will never be raised above 50 per cent. I hope that the Minister will also take this opportunity to indicate when the second appointed day will be.
The Minister also dealt with the Betterment Levy (Minerals) Regulations. He said that this was a difficult part of the Act. No doubt, in accordance with his undertaking, we shall hear about the three printing errors in these Regulations, so that we can consider whether we should give leave for the necessary amendments to be made. As the debate proceeds we shall, no doubt, hear of the other errors and omissions in the printing.
The minerals Regulations make amendments to the Act in order that the levy shall apply to the grant of mineral leases and licences. As these Regulations are, in effect, amendments to the Act, we must be careful about giving leave for errors to be put right. Secondly, while they provide for an exemption from the levy in most cases where a mineral operator is starting work on mineral development, they do not provide an exemption for a landowner granting a lease or licence to a mineral operator. Perhaps the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will explain why this artificial and apparently arbitrary distinction has been made.
As I understand it, the effect of Regulation 11 is to exempt projects of mineral development from the levy in Case C. first, where a developing owner was a mineral undertaker on 23rd September, 1965, and would have been a developing owner on that date t or, secondly, where he is a mineral undertaker who acquired the land concerned on or after 23rd September, 1965, but before the first appointed day; or, thirdly, where he acquired the land on or after the first appointed day under a disposition duly notified as a chargeable act or event.
Effectively, projects are always exempt except where an undertaker bought the land under a chargeable disposition not

notified as it should have been. It appears that there is an exemption except in that sole instance whether the land was bought before or after the appointed day. It is difficult to understand why this was not said in five lines—that is, if my interpretation of the position is correct.
Regulation 10(3) could hardly be more unhelpful. It says:
In relation to a project of mineral development 'specified operation' shall include, in addition to what is specified in section 64(3), any operation in the course of winning or working minerals.
That contrasts unfavourably with the precise specified operations described in Section 64(3) of the Act. Such uncertainty in defining a specified operation is inexcusable, because the commencement of one without prior notification is a criminal offence. It is no good having page after page of Regulations which do not define a specified operation which may attract levy or criminal charges.
The Minister then dealt briefly with the Case F General Regulations arising under Section 35 and said that it would be convenient to take them with the Case F Supplemental Regulations, Order No. 299, and the credits for Case F Regulations, No. 300, which derive from Schedules 5 and 7. These three sets of Regulations, which are linked also with the regulations over tenancies and reversions, are a shambles. They contain nothing which could not or should not have been included in the Act. Category 1 of Case F events dealt with in paragraph (3), are treated as grants of tenancies and Case B should be defined so as to include them. Category 2, that is, paragraph (4), dealing with the rates in the nature of easements, is indistinguishable from Case E, except for a few definitions and Category 3, that is paragraph (5), dealing with depreciations, which is similarly indistinguishable from Case D.
Provisions in the Regulations as to notification, calculations of levy and credits follow Cases B, D and E so closely that the need for Case F is hardly apparent. If it is necessary, we shall want some explanation as to why. Paragraph 3, of the Case F Supplemental Regulations, Order No. 299, perpetrates a possible injustice, in that it provides that, as in paragraph 5 of Schedule 5


in relation to cases D or E events, intervention of a Case F event will prevent reliance on a previous disposition as a base value on future assessments. That is unexceptional and is, no doubt, clear to all my hon. Friends and to the general public.
However, in relation to Case D and Case E events, Schedule 6(16) provides that reliance on a previous disposition is prevented only in respect of the land affected by the Case D or E events. No such apportionment provision has been made in respect of Case F. Accordingly, if I am right, if an estate is bought, with a subsequent grant of a wayleave, to, perhaps, an electricity authority to lay an underground cable under a small part of it, no reliance could thereafter be placed on the purchase price of the estate as the base value. In other words, if there was an intervention of a Case D or E event, in the case of part of the land, the benefit would be lost of previous dispositions in respect of the whole of the land. That, I hope, is clear.
Para. (5) of the Case F Supplemental Regulations and the explanatory note to it, attain a new level of unintelligibility. Para. 5(3) provides:
Where the tenancy the subject of the disposition (in this regulation referred to as 'the old tenancy') was granted by a disposition falling within the antecedent period, the normal reversionary element shall be an amount equal to what would have been the consideration given for the last relevant disposition of the chargeable interest if that interest had been the interest which the chargeable owner in fact had in the relevant land immediately before the disposition (no regard being had to the hypotheses which are required to be adopted under para. (4) of that regulation for the purpose of assessing levy in respect of that disposition).
If anyone within or without the House can understand that, I admire him. They will, of course, have the benefit of the explanatory note, which says:
These are adaptations to base value, whether found under Schedule 4 or 5 to the Act, by an amount to take account of the notional surrender of the tenancy and by an amount to offset (where appropriate) "—
What that means, God only knows—
the additional consideration deemed to have been given by the tenant for the renewal, extension or variation of the tenancy.
Regulation 5 of the present regulations, for the purpose of ascertaining the modified value, provides for the addition to base value, whether found under Schedule 4 or 5 to the Act, of the amount which is added to base value in the

Case F assessment, to take account of the notional surrender of the tenancy. The other amount mentioned above is not appropriate for the purpose of finding the modified value.
In that case, what does "where appropriate" mean?
I now turn to something more complicated, the Betterment Levy (Tenancies and Reversions) Regulations, No. 298. The manner in which these Regulations have been made is inexcusable. Most, if not all, of them should or could have been contained in the Schedule, since they cover the same ground as the Schedules and make much of Schedules 4, 5 or 6 completely meaningless in relation to any tenancies or reversions. People have been studying these Schedules for weeks but must now consider them in the light of Regulations which make them unintelligible.
Paragraph (3), for example, provides that the provisions of Paragraph (3) of Schedule 5 shall apply to related tenancies subject to grants as well as assignments of these tenancies. It might have been simpler and less misleading to have incorporated the Regulation in Part III, but that is water under the bridge. Paragraph (4) in effect amends paragraph (4) of Schedule 6, which is objectionable. We must always beware of such things. We know that the Act was in a mess, but it should not be amended now, by Orders and Regulations.
The function of Paragraph (4) appears to be the correction of an error or the supplying of an omission in the drafting of that paragraph in the Act. Every Regulation, so far as I understand, alters the effect of the Schedule in favour of the Commission and against the levy payer. That must be wrong. Paragraph (5), for example, elaborately apportions base value of the reversion between the right to receive rent under the tenancy and the value of the reversionary right to possession. It also restricts the operation of the eleven-tenths formula in assessing base value for the latter element.
Paragraphs (7) and (8) appear to be wholly unnecessary. Their stated object is to ensure that a tenancy's owner does not pay a levy on development for which he has already paid. That seems fair. Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of Schedule 5 would, however, have achieved this


without the need for regulations. But, although they appear to be unnecessary, there is a hidden purpose. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to confirm that the real object of the Regulations is to restrict the use of a Schedule 5 base value in assessing the levy by excluding from the consideration deemed to be given on the part of a tenancy any rent payable under the tenancy.
It should be noted also that, as far as I can judge, the last sentence of the second paragraph on page 13 of the Explanatory Note is quite inadequate and inaccurate. It says:
In the normal case the consideration given for a last relevant disposition is calculated in the same way as that consideration was calculated for the purpose of assessing levy on the disposition in respect of which it was paid …
Regulation 7 does not restrict the base value of the interest under a tenancy to the amount of a consideration for the grant, less any amount representing rent. It excludes from the definition of consideration any amount representing rent, apparently, on the grounds that he has not yet paid some of that rent although he is, of course, liable to pay it.
Regulation 14 is quite monstrous because it contravenes two principles to which there are no other exceptions in the Act. First, it provides that, in certain circumstances, the grantee of a tenancy may find himself paying levy payable by the grantor. If the grantee fails to notify the grant of a tenancy, there will be added to the market value of his interest, on the first assessment of levy following the grant, the value of the rent payable under the tenancy. Thus, in spite of the provisions of Section 83 forbidding the transfer of levy liability, Regulation 14 does this by rendering the grantee liable to pay levy properly
chargeable on the grantor. This is
wrong.
Secondly, Regulation 14 applies even to grants of tenancies of less than seven years which the grantee is not obliged to notify at all. Here we see how misleading the Explanatory Notes and leaflets are. All sorts of people are being caught by these Regulations, and they have no idea what is going to hit them. The effect of the Regulation if the grantee does not notify such a tenancy means that he may later find himself paying

levy on the grant although the Act imposes no duty on him to notify it. That is scandalous. The explanatory note justifies the Regulation as enabling the Commission to recover levy lost as the consequence of breach of the grantee's statutory duty to notify. It does not explain why the levy has to be recovered by way of penalty from the grantee rather than the grantor, why criminal penalties existing are inadequate and why a penalty should be imposed on the grantee of a tenancy who has no duty to notify.
In spite of what is not in the explanatory note, it is still over five pages long. I think that it is the longest we have ever had. I will just read the explanatory note to Regulation No. 6. We must remember that this note is supposed to simplify:
Regulation 6 deals with the allowance to be made to the owner of a reversion in respect of his expenditure on improvements or ancillary rights on an assessment for levy affecting the reversion. The provisions of Part V of Schedule 4 to the Act would entitle the owner to claim the whole of the expenditure which qualifies for allowance. This Regulation therefore provides for adjustment in a case where the tenancy on which the landowner's interest is reversionary (which is defined in Regulation 2(1) as the immediate tenancy) was granted after the first appointed day, this being a case where the landowner will already have received an allowance in respect of part of this expenditure, viz. on the Case B assessment made on the grant of that tenancy. Under paragraph 51 of Schedule 4 the landowner's expenditure up to the date when the immediate tenancy was granted will have been apportioned between the tenancy and the reversion in proportion to the amount appropriate to the tenancy (T) and the amount appropriate to the reversion (R). If T is the amount of the consideration given for the grant of the tenancy, and R (which is described in Schedule 4 paragraph 12 as the reversionary value of the chargeable interest) is the value of the grantor's right to enjoy the land free from the tenancy after its termination, then the amount of the landowner's expenditure which is taken into account on the grant of the tenancy may
then be expressed as T/T+R, so that R/T+R is left to be brought into account on an assessment of levy on a subsequent chargeable act or event affecting the reversion.
That is all in three sentences, totalling well over 200 words. Having tried to study the Regulation, I find it simpler than the explanation. As far as I can gather, all that it is seeking to do is to provide for the possibility of an


owner of a reversion claiming an allowance twice in respect of improvements under Part V of Schedule 4. What a crazy world we live in when, to say something which can be put reasonably sensibly in a sentence, we have to have an explanatory note with three sentences, the first of 66 words, the second of 47 and the last of 105.
I could spend two or three weeks going through all these Regulations. But it is easier for us here. We can pick out a sample. People who have to deal with the cases which will arise under these Orders and Regulations cannot pick samples. They have to go through them line by line, regulation by regulation, read both the Regulations and the explanatory notes, realise how complex they are and then get down to working it all out. It is intolerable.
I do not want to deal with many more of these details. I have just chosen examples to show the intense complexity of the matter. Bad laws are the worst form of tyranny, as Burke said, and these are dreadful. I do not intend to deal with the Regulations affecting Scotland. Others of my right hon. and hon. Friends will do that. The House will be encouraged to know that, in general, they are even more elaborate than the English ones. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are the Scots?"] The Scots will be here tomorrow. Meanwhile they are studying the effects of the Scottish feudal system on these Orders and Regulations.
It is interesting to note that the Government benches should draw attention to the fact that Monday morning sittings are hideously inconvenient for hon. Members travelling long distances. I had to travel from my constituency in Northumberland yesterday in order to be here for this debate. It would be more sensible if the House kept to its old hours. But that is by the way.
I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not go into all the 22 Orders and Regulations before the House but my right hon. and hon. Friends will, no doubt, choose to do so. I hope that I have given sufficient examples to establish, first, the hideous complexity of the Regulations and, secondly, the wide areas of doubt and difficulties which still remain to be dealt with, both in matters in the Orders and Regulations and mat-

ters which are still outside them. It is on these grounds that we hope that the Government will, even at this late stage, listen to reason and withdraw them and give an opportunity to us and people outside to improve them where they clearly need to be improved. We want to bring some semblance of order out of chaos, as the right hon. Gentleman does.
I have described the Act and its stream of Orders and Regulations as a veritable library of absurdity. But it is one that we have to try to deal with. The real tragedy is that confidence in the law and its administration is bound to be undermined when it is well nigh impossible for ordinary citizens to understand it, much less lawyers and other experts.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Stationery Office is refusing to give hon. Members more than one copy of the explanatory memoranda so that they are not even able to send to their constituents all the information available?

Mr. Rippon: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information. I am sure that he has drawn attention to a matter of very grave concern. Apart from copies available to hon. Members, one of the difficulties that arise is, as I have heard, that many local authorities which are supposed to have copies to make available to the public have run out of them. It may be just as well, because they are dangerous documents to have.

Mr. Willey: I note what the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has said. The fact is that we have reached the third reprint. I will see that the hon. Gentleman's comment is conveyed to the Stationery Office but, in the light of what the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) has said, I again emphasise that we have got to the third reprint. We have published 300,000 copies each of the guides to builders and estate agents, and half a million copies of the general leaflet.

Mr. Rippon: That is a dreadful statement. We know that there are over a million transactions in land each year. What is the good of 300,000 of these leaflets? Every member of the public should have one.

Mr. Willey: I said 300,000 copies each of the leaflets to estate agents and builders.

Mr. Rippon: That only comes to 600,000 copies. What about copies for the other people? This makes the point we have made over and over again, that so many people are affected by these provisions that they are almost desperate to get hold of some information. It is intolerable that local authorities and town halls should have been allowed to run out of copies.

Mr. James Allason: Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will allow me to say that I have here a letter dated only four days ago saying that the Stationery Office is out of print of these pamphlets and quite unable to supply copies to hon. Members.

Mr. Rippon: I am sure that the Minister has taken note of the matter.
There has been nothing like this rubbish since the notorious Egg Orders, when it was necessary to X-ray an egg before selling it to make sure one had not committed a criminal offence. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister will know all about that, because he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food in the Labour Government after the war. He no doubt feels he is back to those far off happy days of incomprehensible law. I have called this Act this Order and those Regulations incomprehensible but, in a sense, as an intellectual exercise, they can be comprehended after a fashion, although many matters of doubt will have to be resolved by the House of Lords—probably just about the date of repeal.
All I say now is that these Regulations and the Order ale such that it is simply beyond reason and common sense to try to comprehend them. But we have to try now, to say nothing of the leaflets and the other so-called guidance. All these publications are supposed to be aimed at clearing up confusion, even to the extent of amending from time to time the Act of Parliament itself, but they are all doomed to end in confusion worse confounded. I beg the Government to think again about all this misplaced ingenuity, and try to tidy up the legislation until such time as we can make a bonfire of it all.

11.14 a.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: After the devastating onslaught on these Regulations made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), any Minister who cared more for the interests of the public than for any loss of face would withdraw them so that they could be, first of all, redrafted and put into a form which ordinary citizens would have some hope of understanding and, secondly, could come forward at a time when there had been proper opportunity to study them. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman missed the opportunity to add greatly to his stature by getting up now and saying that these Regulations and the Order were for the time being withdrawn though, of course, he would reserve the right—indeed, it would probably be the duty—to put them forward in new form at a time when they could be discussed properly and at leisure by this House.
I must enter my protest at Statutory Instruments of this importance being taken at a morning sitting. Not only are they, as my right hon. and learned Friend has shown, of immense practical importance to the citizen, but one of them imposes taxation—bringing in, gross, according to the Minister himself, £80 million a year. It is quite outrageous that they should be taken at a morning sitting. People outside who will be affected by these Regulations, and who read of our debate, should know that they are being pushed through the House on a Monday morning with the Government benches containing the right hon. Gentleman the Minister, two zealous Parliamentary Secretaries, an intermittently wakeful Whip, a Parliamentary Private Secretary, and two back-bench Members—no, one back-bench Member who has just entered the Chamber having, if I may say so, shown his discrimination in not seeking to listen to the Minister's speech.
This atmosphere, this state of affairs, should be known by the large numbers of our fellow citizens who will read this debate and will wish to know the circumstances in which this Government saw fit to push through these Regulations. If they had been taken in other circumstances one would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have been


forced by the opinion of his own hon. and right hon. Friends to withdraw the Orders after the drubbing they have had. Yet we are dealing with this business on a Monday morning, irrespective of the undertaking given by the Leader of the House as to the nature of the business to be taken at morning sittings. I make no protest about the first item of business, when the Leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), dealt, with unconscious appropriateness, with national disasters.
These Regulations constitute far too serious a matter to be taken at this morning sitting.
I want to direct some observations to the Order which determines the rate of taxation, and which, I repeat, has been treated in the most lighthearted fashion, by being put down for this morning at all. It is the Betterment Levy (Prescribed Rate) Order, which fixes the rate of betterment levy. The Minister said, I thought somewhat provocatively, that he regarded 40 per cent. as a low or moderate rate. I hope that whoever replies on behalf of the Government will be able to reconcile that approach with the original purported purpose of the Bill, which is to reduce the price of land for housing. I hope we may have explained to us how the imposition of the tax at this high rate will lower the price of land required for people's homes, and why this particular type of taxation should be expected to work in precisely the opposite way to every other form of taxation we know.
The House has heard from Ministers again and again that they are raising the levels of indirect taxation for the purpose of raising the price of the commodity on which the taxation falls in order to withdraw purchasing power. That has been the whole object of at least half the emergency measures in at least half the emergency Budgets for which this Government have been responsible. How, then, has the Minister succeeded in deluding himself into the belief that a 40 per cent. tax on development value will reduce the price of land? Will he deal with the view which my right hon. and hon. Friends hold, that there is no more effective method of inflating the price of land than the imposi-

tion of a levy of this kind, widespread in scope, at a rate of 40 per cent.? This is a measure to increase the price of homes.
If the Minister will not take that from me, I hope that he will at least take it from the man whom he has appointed Chairman of the Land Commission—Sir Henry Wells. Sir Henry was reported a fortnight ago in the Press as having said that the Land Commission will make substantial profits out of their dealings in land; in particular, in the sale of agricultural land for building. If these substantial profits are to be made through a levy at this prescribed rate, either one or other or both of two things must happen. Either the farmer, who is losing his livelihood because his land is taken, will get less than a fair price for it, or the purchaser will pay more than he need for it and so inflate the price of a home. This and this only is where the profits about which Sir Henry was gloating the other day will come. For what purpose? Because as Sir Henry Wells said he would fight to the death to prevent any Government laying a hand on his profits.
For what purpose are they? They impose a tax on the price of land, a tax on the building of homes, and at the same time give no relief to the general taxpayer. Is not this the very reductio ad absurdurn of taxation? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us how long the 40 per cent. rate is to last. He went out of his way to threaten higher rates. Under this miserable Act he has power by order subject, I believe, to affirmative procedure to increase the rate. He is threatening to increase it even further to 45 per cent. and 50 per cent. I think he will agree that there is nothing in the Act to prevent him raising it even further.
Does he not realise that by high and increasing rates of this sort he is increasing the chance of his committing the same mistake as Lord Silkin did—I do not mean the mistake of producing the Government Chief Whip but the mistake of the 1947 Act and causing, as these high rates of levy undoubtedly will, an unwillingness of people to bring forward land for development?
The right hon. Gentleman was priding himself the other day that land was coming forward quickly now. Of course it is. Between now and 6th April there


will be a natural desire for landowners to bring their land forward. But does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this is simply eating the seed corn, because landowners realise that there will be little advantage in bringing it forward after 6th April? He is merely creating a situation in which those who seek to build next year will find the greatest difficulty in getting land as the sole and direct result of prescribing a 40 per cent. rate for this levy.
I am informed that in the Midlands, particularly in Derby, Inland Revenue valuers and valuation officers, have adopted a curious line when asked by people whose land is being purchased either compulsorily or voluntarily by local authorities to get the transaction through by 6th April. I am told that at least one district valuer is saying that he will do this only if it is agreed that he should knock off the purchase price half the amount which otherwise might have fallen as levy.
I want to know whether this is being done with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman. I have already written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and drawn attention to this matter. But it is directly relevant to the imposition of a levy of this kind at this stage. I want to know whether it in fact results in a loss to the vendor of the land of half the amount of the levy in respect of a transaction operating at a date before the levy lawfully comes into operation and whether that has the approval of the Government. If not, I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to discuss with the Chancellor the steps to be taken to put the matter right so that people who have suffered from taxation without he authority of Parliament may have their position reinstated.
To use the right hon. Gentleman's phrase, my next question will not be unexpected. I ask what he expects the net yield of the levy to be at the rate of 40 per cent. He has told us again and again although without supporting figures that he expects the gross yield to be £80 million. The right hon. Gentleman accepts that some of that will be offset by the reduced yield of Income Tax, Surtax, Profits Tax, Corporation Tax, Estate Duties and Capital Gains Tax. All those will show a lower yield because in some cases the taxes are alternatives and in others the taxable

capacity is reduced. Now we have the right hon. Gentleman asking Parliament to fix a rate of 40 per cent. Now that we have reached this stage I hope that he will feel it is a stage at which Parliament is entitled to be told how much he expects to get.
When we are asked to approve a tax which I hope I have demonstrated will undoubtedly raise the cost of land and I think of homes, at least we ought to know how much the net revenue is that it will produce and what is the counterbalancing advantage, whether the Land Commission is able to hang on to it all or some of it goes to the relief of the general taxpayer. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who so far has been insensitive on this point will appreciate that it is wrong to ask Parliament to approve a rate of tax when he is not prepared to hazard even the roughest estimate of what the net yield will be. This is not the way to treat Parliament.
It is fair to say that this is not the way the Chancellor treats Parliament. Although the estimates of the present Chancellor are generally wildly wrong, he at least tries. The objection to the Minister is that he is not even trying. He is literally asking for a blank cheque from Parliament, a blank cheque for taxation he is to obtain from the taxpayer. This is not good enough. The right hon. Gentleman must have some idea. If he has no idea how has he reached the gross figure of £80 million. I assume that this is not just part of a numbers game—think of a number—but was based on some rational calculation. If there are rational calculations they must have a bearing on what the net yield will be.
I pay the right hon. Gentleman the compliment of saying that even if he believes the net yield will be absolutely trivial, only a million or two, even he would not be so doctrinaire as to ignore the cost of collection. The relevant figure, as anyone familiar with taxation knows, is the net figure. Will the cost of collection be close to the net yield? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us? He cannot be urging the tax on us without at least being satisfied himself. If he is satisfied, there must be some material available to him. If there is material available to him, why cannot it be made available to Parliament? It is the ulti-


mate function of this House, and has been for 500 years, to approve taxation. It is no proper discharge of that function by this House to approve taxation when the Minister asks for it without being prepared to tell us what he is expecting to get. This is an abuse of the whole process of Parliament. It may be typical of the contempt this Government habitually show to this House, but it is going a little too far in this case. The right hon. Gentleman will be pressed very hard indeed before he can be allowed to impose taxes and not tell us what he expects to get from them.
My right hon. and learned Friend referred very properly to the incomprehensibility of the Order and the Regulations. This again has a bearing on their being taken this morning when owing to the ineffectiveness of the Government's arrangements it is not possible to fill the public galleries. Surveyors, solicitors, people concerned professionally might well have wanted to crowd the galleries this morning to hear the explanation of a law on which they are to advise their clients and which is to come into force in just over a fortnight's time. But this is being done this morning.
I must say, in fairness, that if they had heard the right hon. Gentleman they would not have been very greatly advantaged. They will have to construe passages like this from the Betterment Levy (Tenancies and Reversions) Regulations 1967. The right hon. Gentleman is, I hope, familiar with Regulation 3(1) and no doubt will rise to his feet instantly to explain it when I have read it:
Subject to the following provisions of this regulation and of regulation 9, the provisions of Part III of Schedule 5 shall have effect for the purpose of assessing levy in respect of a chargeable act or event where by a relevant disposition there was granted to the chargeable owner, or to a predecessor of his, a related tenancy which, by merger after it was granted to him, has ceased to exist before the relevant date, as they have effect for such a purpose where by a relevant disposition there was assigned to the chargeable owner a related tenancy which, by merger after it was assigned to him, has ceased to exist before the relevant date as if any reference to an assignment were a reference to a grant, the words "assigning" and "assigned" being con-trued accordingly.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, you as an experienced lawyer know that all citizens

are presumed to know the law, with the possible exception of Her Majesty's judges, who have a court of appeal to put them right if they go wrong. Is it not nonsense to impose this kind of verbiage in a very important matter on the citizen by Orders laid in the last few days—this was laid on 6th March—and which are to come into force in just over a fortnight's time?
I do not want to weary the House, but I must stress to the Minister that legislation—for this is delegated legislation—of this kind simply will not do. An enormously important provision is contained in Regulation 8(3,a):
the capital value at the date of the disposition of the right to receive the rent (if any) which, in accordance with the terms of the disposition or of any contract in pursuance of which the disposition was made, was or is payable in respect of the immediate tenancy, calculated in accordance with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4, but reduced in accordance with paragraph (5) of this regulation where that paragraph is applicable".
This is not good enough. The right hon. Gentleman must rely, not on beautiful explanatory documents, even if they are there, though we have heard from the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that they are out of print already, though I repeat that this law is to operate in just over a fortnight's time, but on legislation which is reasonably comprehensible, at any rate to lawyers.
I could go on, but I do not want to weary the House, because these Measures are riddled with oblique, confused, complex, ill-digested and hopelessly ill-drafted verbiage of this kind.
I want to make just one further point of substance on the Material Development Regulations, 1967. The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought that it was something of a virtue of these Regulations that they exempted from the levy expansion of industrial premises to a lesser extent than 5 per cent., as compared with 10 per cent. in respect of houses.
Has the right hon. Gentleman applied his mind on this point to the purported purpose of this Measure? What on earth is the justification, in social or economic terms, for imposing any levy on the expansion of industrial premises? It has been the policy of successive Governments for years to encourage this. Under the Conservative Government we


had the extremely effective investment allowances and initial allowances, with special extra provision to encourage the expansion of industrial premises in development areas. This Government have a much less effective system—that of investment grants—which at any rate is claimed to work in the same direction.
It can surely therefore be said that the public policy of all Governments has been to encourage the expansion, the improvement, the development, of industrial plant. Everybody recognises this, except the right hon. Gentleman, who prides himself on the fact that a person who makes only a small expansion of his factory is exempted from levy, whereas a person who makes an expansion of any practical or economic size will be subject to levy.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that not only is the whole of this dead against provision for the increased efficiency of industry, but by putting the figure of 5 per cent. in this Measure he is deliberately encouraging industrialists to make niggling little additions to their property whereas what they want to do is expand on a large scale? The development of industrial plant is made difficult enough today by penal and ill-directed taxation and by a brutally administered system of I.D.Cs. For the right hon. Gentleman to provide that an industrialist's improvement of his plant is a matter that the Government particularly intend to tax is a new low in the inconsistencies of which the Government are guilty.

Mr. Rippon: Is it not right, too, that the exemption in paragraph 7 of these Regulations not only applies only when the factory is extended up to 5,000 feet but only when no industrial development certificate is required? As my right hon. Friend says, that is a particularly brutal process at the present time.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am very much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend. He has rammed home the point that, whatever view is taken on this levy at this rate, whatever view is taken about its general application, whatever view is taken—I have strong views—on its application to owner-occupiers, to apply it at all to industrial premises is dead against what every economist in the country would regard as the national interest—the modernisation and improvement of plant.
It is bad enough that at this moment industrial investment is now forecast as being 10 per cent. or 11 per cent. down in the coming year on last year, as a direct result of the Government's Measures. It is quite intolerable for the right hon. Gentleman to add to that process by making industrial investment more expensive and more difficult.
The right hon. Gentleman was warned of this during the proceedings on the Bill. Right back on the Second Reading of the earlier Bill he was warned that this was a wrong and foolish action. This small exception in favour only Of the least worth while of industrial expansions in no way mitigates his offence.
Therefore, before we pass from these Measures we must leave it on record that their net effect is to impose on the public a mass of legislation which it is an affectation to suggest even trained lawyers can fully understand and which must bewilder and muddle the enormous numbers of people whom it will affect. These are Measures which will increase the cost of housing, adding another vicious turn to the inflationary rise in the cost of houses for which this Government has been responsible. This legislation contains the innovation, even for this Government, of taxing industrial efficiency.

11.38 a.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I apologise for not being present throughout this debate, but I am sure you will understand my position, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I tell you that I have been engaged this very morning on trying to sort out queries on behalf of my constituents who are completely at sea in trying to interpret this abominable Act. I had two people at my advice bureau on Saturday. I have received further letters this morning asking for some further explanation, which I regret to say I was not able to give off the cuff.
I think I may be excused for that, because I have obtained copies of the publications issued by the Minister and have studied them. There is nothing in them about this vast shower of Regulations we have this morning. I have sought the help over the telephone of the Land Commission in relation to the explanations I must give my constituents.
Let me give one example to the Minister of a person in my constituency


who has bought some land on which there is an old and derelict house. He wishes to build, for his own use and that of his family, a new dwelling on the same site. After considerable trouble, the person at the Land Commission to whom I spoke was able to refer me to the Material Development Regulations, 1967, which provide that if the rebuilding is less than 1,000 sq. ft. more than the original building no levy is payable. But the publication on the betterment levy does not tell us that. One has to look through the Regulations as well. Apparently, my constituent is expected to have knowledge of Statutory Instruments which have come before Parliament only this morning and to know whether he is liable to pay the levy. This is why it is most important that all the documents available to the public should be free to hon. Members so that they can send them to their constituents.
I was extremely upset as a result of writing to the Stationery Office about these four publications—I have questioned the Minister on them, asking if he would publish them—to be told that they were out of print. As a matter of courtesy, considering that I put the Question to the Minister, I should have thought that he would have made copies available to me as soon as they were published. I had to ring up the Stationery Office, only to be told that they were out of print, and I got an apologetic letter from the Stationery Office.
I then got in touch with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to ask whether it had some spare copies. I told the Ministry that I was receiving all these queries which I was unable to answer. This morning I received a letter from the Ministry saying:
I am afraid the booklet on the betterment levy published by H.M. Stationery Office at 4s. 6d. is temporarily out of print but fresh supplies are being prepared as quickly as possible.
Even when those fresh supplies are available, I will not be supplied with copies unless I pay 4s. 6d. to the Stationery Office for each copy. I suppose that I can bear that expense, but why on earth should I? I almost said, "why the hell should I?". It is my duty, as a constituency Member of Parliament, to explain the working of the Act to my

constituents. Therefore, all the documents published by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government should be available to me free of charge.
The Ministry of Housing and Local Government said with regard to the other publications:
I am sorry I must limit myself to sending you two copies "—
I said earlier that it was one copy, but it was two copies—
but I am sure you will understand.
I do not understand at all. Already at this early stage, before the Act has come into force, I am receiving quite a large number of queries, and I anticipate that they will grow in volume considerably as people begin to understand the import of this abominable Act.
I appeal to the Minister to help us to explain the Act as best we can to our constituents and not to penny-pinch in the way that he is doing by depriving us of copies of documents. If the Government can afford to pay 24,000 extra civil servants, then surely they can pay a little extra in printing costs so that we can do our jobs as Members of Parliament.
I agree wholeheartedly with the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). These Statutory Instruments will create widespread confusion in the minds of the public. They will give rise to large expenditure on legal advice and accountancy fees which would not otherwise have been necessary. I endorse the right hon. and learned Member's plea to the Minister to take these Regulations away and have discussions through the usual channels so that they can be put forward again in a more comprehensible form. If he is not prepared to do that, at least he should consider having additional notes published to explain the explanatory notes.

11.43 a.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: We have listened to a fascinating debate. The only speech which did not tell us anything was that of the Minister who presented the Motions to the House. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is in the same position as I am: perhaps he does not understand his own Orders and Regulations. I make no apology for saying that as a layman I have very little


idea about what the bulk of these Regulations mean. I have read the Explanatory Memorandum. That only makes confusion worse confounded. Then I am told that the booklets of explanation are out of print.
This is a most terrifying process. The Government are presenting a group of provisions on a most controversial and very confusing Bill. They present them on a Monday morning when the Galleries are not as well attended as usual and therefore people who want to listen to the debate are deprived of the opportunity and when the bulk of the Minister's own supporters are not present.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend is being unduly kind to the Government. The only supporter they have present is the highly mobile P.P.S.

Sir D. Glover: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I am not absolutely certain that she is not also a temporary P.P.S. This shows the depths to which the Government have been reduced by sitting on Monday mornings. Even the reserves are working, and temporaries are taking the place of permanents.
I do not understand the Minister. He sits there looking benign, and yet I believe that he is one of the most evil members of the Government. He said with unctuous arrogance that the levy would not apply to a householder who was extending his house by 10 per cent. or 1,000 sq. ft. by building a garage. Was he putting this forward as a virtue? Of course, he had to explain the point to the House because he did not make it clear during the passage of the Bill. It seems that the right hon. Gentleman sees virtue in the fact that people who wished to make such an extension would be exempt and could build a garage without incurring a penalty. It is outrageous that the thought should ever have entered the Government's mind.
To say that the levy will apply to industrial premises which are extended by over 5 per cent. or over 5,000 sq. ft. is the politics of Bedlam. The public, very misguidedly, returned the Government to power on a so-called gritty programme of instant efficiency, high cost-effectiveness, under which money would not be wasted, with everyone being encouraged to introduce more efficient systems. Yet,

as soon as a firm wishes to expand and to show that it is efficient, what happens? It gets hit on the head. Is this the way to achieve efficiency?
Will the Minister tell the House before these Motions are accepted the net amount which he expects the State will get from the levy? I remember raising this point when we debated the Bill during the 1964 Parliament. We have never had a satisfactory explanation. I accept that this year the levy will bring in more money than the Capital Gains Tax, because the gain would be only on the difference between two given points of time. But over the next five years the difference will narrow. The Department knows that the levy will bring in a very small sum of money. Probably this is why the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources was amalgamated with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—because it would not raise enough money to pay its own on-costs. The public are becoming aware of the complications, red tape and bureaucracy which will save no house purchaser one penny. They will probably have to pay more. It will bring the State a very small net revenue after all the balancing charges and reductions in taxes have been laid against it.
This Ministry was formed to bring efficiency, taking 2,000 of the most scarce brains into its employment—

Mr. Lubbock: Maw.

Sir D. Glover: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I thought at first that he meant "more". I accept his term. I was about to add that this is the Ministry's first estimate, and the more I study the debates on the Bill and these provisions, the more I realise how complicated they are and that 2,000 is probably a gross under-estimate.

Mr. Oscar Murton: My hon. Friend refers to 2,000 but, with 10 regional officers, does he not think that this is an under-estimate?

Sir D. Glover: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have consistently made this point to the right hon. Gentleman. I am prepared to accept that his forecast, which he made throughout the proceedings on the Bill, is right, but I would put it nearer 4,000 or 5,000, and still rising.
People affected by the Bill will want advice, and it will have to come from the Land Commission itself, because in some of these small transactions, people will not know what to do. This is a very small field in many of these transactions. Therefore, the on-load of the Land Commission will cost the State more than the States receives from it.
These are complicated proposals, and people have only until 6th April to understand them. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the state of the printing industry in relation to Government publications. These explanatory booklets are out of print and, as a result of these new Regulations are out of date. Therefore, they would have to be revised before the next printing, and perhaps ought to be called the "authorised version", as they will be very different from those at present in publication.
How can people prepare for the operation of the provisions, and the Act, if they cannot even read the present explanatory booklets? Therefore, should not the right hon. Gentleman say that he will withdraw these Regulations, so that they can be put into understandable language, the explanatory memorandum made at least as clear as the original Act, and the booklet explaining the explanatory memorandum put into language that hon. Members might have a reasonable chance of understanding? I am certain that the public will be in a complete sea of fog as the result of the activities of the right hon. Gentleman and his Department

11.55 a.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: Not being a Member whose constituency is close to Westminster, I had to travel down to this debate by the night train last night and I wondered what malign fate had had it in store for me to come here at 10 o'clock to debate these Regulations and Orders. I consoled myself with the thought that at least some Government back benchers would be suffering the same fate, but, apart from the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), who has been with the Minister throughout his journeyings on the Bill, the place has been singularly empty—

Mr. John Farr: Should not this occasion be placed on record, in that, for the first time, the number of hon. Members on the Liberal benches exceeds the number of Government back benchers?

Mr. Clegg: I agree, and perhaps we ought to have had also the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker), who seems to think that we ought to earn our Parliamentary salaries by being here at 10 o'clock on a Monday morning—

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Mr. Clegg: I support what my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) have said. We are united on this. We thought that the original legislation would not be too bad, but, as we know, there has been a flood of books and pamphlets, issued not only by the Government, trying to explain the Act and what they expected these Regulations and Orders to produce. There has been a tremendous demand for these books.
I received an invitation to a cocktail party to launch one legal textbook which is probably the first time that such a book has been given such treatment. This is the sort of treatment normally reserved for a book like "Lady Chatterley's Lover". If it is any consolation to the right hon. Gentleman, I might tell him that more four-letter words have been uttered by people who have read the Act than ever D. H. Lawrence put in his masterpiece—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: At least they were comprehensible.

Mr. Clegg: Yes, at least we could understand what D. H. Lawrence said.
The difficulty in trying to understand this gritty language of Socialism is that, basically, one cannot. The professions do not understand it, which is why they are being lectured and reading books about it. We have not had time to digest these Regulations and Orders. In this,
I am borne out by an article in today' sedition of The Times. Headed "'Beat the Levy' Rush Grows.Land Act spurs builders." The article read:
A Birmingham builder said: 'I think this Act will be called the Navvies Act. I have never seen so many trenches being dug. The big boys have been doing it for some time.


In fact they have been doing it so blatantly and talking about it, with the full approval of the Land Commission office, that the rest of us began to sit up and take notice.'
Thus one can see what is happening. The big boys perhaps understand some of the implications, but the small man is only beginning to understand and will be further confused by these orders.
Later on, the article said:
Estate agents describe similar conditions. A lot of people are making last-minute efforts, says a large firm in Bedfordshire, even if it means only getting the foundations in for a road. Some councils are being very co-operative in pushing planning permission through. But it is professional developers taking action, not the private client'. The Act is being described as 'the most undemocratic law ever'. and 'an even bigger muddle than the Finance Bill of 1965'. Its unpopularity with some of those it affects could have been predicted, but even now it seems to be understood by scarcely anyone.
That has been the burden of our attack—that the Act is not really understood by anyone and my right hon. and hon. Friends have given examples of the way in which this works. I join with those bedazzled by Statutory Instrument No. 298 dealing with the betterment levy, which is a real bobbydazzler. The third paragraph on page 13 says:
But, where the first chargeable act or event affecting a tenancy is in question, that is, where the last relevant disposition is the grant of the tenancy, the amount which under paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 would be taken as the amount of the consideration for that grant on the Case B assessment would, if the provisions of Schedule 5 were not adapted, include, not merely any capital sum which the tenant paid on the grant, but also a capital sum representing rent which he has not then paid (see section 30(3) and paragraph 7(a) of Schedule 4 to the Act). Regulation 7 therefore restricts the base value of the interest under a tenancy to the amount of the consideration for the grant less any amount representing rent.
My complaint about that paragraph—which is in the explanatory note—is that it contains so many references. We are referred to paragraph 7 of Schedule 4; to case B; to Schedule 5; to Section 30(3); to paragraph 7(a) of Schedule 4 and to Regulation 7. If one happens to carry in one's mind paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 and what it means, it might be possible to understand the explanation. But really one cannot understand the explanatory note without having before one separate copies of the references.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Perhaps this is why the publishers

had that cocktail party. It might be easier to understand these notes after a few drinks.

Mr. Clegg: I agree that one needs strong stimulants to understand what on earth one is studying.

Mr. Lubbock: L.S.D.

Mr. Clegg: I think that people will probably need that as well before this is finished.
I turn now to a practical point put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter)—the effect of the 40 per cent. levy on the price of land. I can give a good example from my constituency of the way this is working. A land owning company there has been releasing land over the past years to small builders to build in blocks of 10, 20 or 30 houses. Now, if one gets a contract from the company before 6th April, it has to be completed by 3rd April or the job is off, and the deposit is returned. The contract is quite specific on this point.
The object of this is clear. Before 6th April, the company will not have to pay the levy but after 6th April it will. It is crystal clear that the land it will sell after 6th April will cost more because of the 40 per cent. levy. The effect of this, as predicted, will be that the extra costs will be passed on to the builder. He cannot afford to absorb the levy and will pass it on to the ultimate purchaser. So the man who will suffer in the end, although he was promised that he would have cheaper houses, is the house purchaser. He will have to pay more and this fact is becoming more and more self-evident.
Another point made by my right hon. Friend gave me a great deal of food for thought. In my constituency, in Fleet-wood and Thornton-Cleveleys, we have an unemployment rate of 8·3 per cent. We badly need factories there. I recently asked a Question of the Board of Trade and was told that the best hope for my constituency was industrial development certificates. But, under these Regulations, that will not be much help. People coming into North Fylde to develop factories in an area screaming out for new industry will find that the cost of factory


sites is being raised because the landowners will not just absorb the levy but will pass it on.
Perhaps I may now turn to some more points of detail and the Parliamentary Secretary will, I hope, be able to help because they arise out of a matter that I referred to in Standing Committee. The first concerns physical recreation. As I understand it, under the Regulations concerning material development, the exemption is for buildings or the use of land where people are participating in outside sports. For instance, this exemption would not cover a gymnasium, where the sport is inside, or a badminton hall, indoor tennis court, fives court or squash court. It seems strange that there should be this difference between indoor and outdoor recreation, especially in view of our wretched climate.
In the Waiver of Interest Regulations, paragraph 3(4,c) states:
where the relevant project consists of the erection or construction of a building intended to be used wholly or mainly for the purpose of the taking of physical recreation therein;
I understand that if it is an indoor sport, there is discretion in the Commission either to waive interest or delay the payment or even to remit some of it. That is a distinction between an indoor sport and an outdoor sport.

Mr. Skeffington: Mr. Skeffington indiciated assent.

Mr. Clegg: I see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding so that appears to be the true explanation. But it is a distinction that I find hard to understand. I presume that it would apply in the case of a commercial bowling alley, which would possibly get some concession on the payment of levy.
There seems also a rather strange sort of thing in Statutory Instrument No. 354, where we have the prescribed forms of the vesting declaration. For once the language is simple—because the Government are getting what they want—but the public should know the meaning of the words used on page 3 in giving the form of notice stating the effect of the general vesting declaration. They are as follows:
NOW THIS DEED WITNESSETH that in exercise of the power for the purpose conferred on the Commission by section 9 of the Act the Commission hereby declare as follows:

1. The land described in the Schedule hereto (being the whole/part of the land described in the Schedule to the compulsory purchase order) and more particularly delineated on the plan hereto annexed together with the right to enter upon and take possession of the same shall vest in the Commission as from the end of the period of (insert period of 28 days or longer) days from the date on which the service of notices required by section 9(3) of the Act is completed.
In these few simple words, the citizen can lose his land. The words do away with the necessity for conveyance or assignment. From the day those words are used, the land is no longer his. He may have the right of compensation, but that is all. Deeds in his possession are worthless because they only prove title to land which, from the date of vesting, becomes the property of the Government.
I am worried about the position of mortgagees once a declaration in these terms has been made. I presume that the rights of a mortgagee will attach to the compensation which is payable to the owner of the land, but, in reality, once a general vesting declaration in this form has been used, a first mortgagee whose security was the deeds has no security. That is bound to cause confusion in the lending of money from now on where there is any possibility of a general vesting declaration. I hope that the Minister will consider publishing an explanatory leaflet going much further than the explanatory note at the end of Statutory Instrument No. 354 to make it clear to people who have lent money and to owners what will be the true effects of a general vesting declaration.
It is true that the words:
The effect of the general vesting declaration is as follows
appear in Part II, but they do not go sufficiently far. There is little enough there to indicate to people who are not owners but who have an interest in the land what their rights are under the scheme.
I am convinced that these Regulations will bring chaos and confusion to an already chaotic and confused situation. The best thing that the Minister can do is to withdraw them and give time for the professions particularly to have a full mastery of them and the Act on which they are based.

12.11 p.m.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: The most interesting feature this morning is that, so far, we have not heard a single speech in support of the Government's proposed Regulations, with the exception of the perfunctory opening remarks of the Minister. In fact, the Government have not had any supporters present in the Chamber, and that shows how mystified, bemused and worried hon. Members opposite must be about these Regulations.
I notice that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) has just entered the Chamber, and I am glad that the Government now have at least one of their supporters present—

Mr. William Price: Let me assure the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) that I do not come into the category of those who support the Land Commission Bill.

Mr. Channon: The views of the hon. Gentleman are well known. It is interesting that the only speaker from the Labour back benches should be one who is against the Land Commission.

Mr. Lubbock: Since the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) has told us that he supports the Land Commission, perhaps he would be good enough to explain the Explanatory Memorandum to the House.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has it all wrong. The hon. Member for Rugby has told us today and on many other occasions that he does not support the Land Commission. We are united in this Chamber, with the exception of the Minister, and I suspect that even he appreciates what a lot of gibberish he is asking the House to approve this morning.
I must apologise for having taken no part so far in the debates on the Land Commission when the Bill was going through the House. If my mastery of it is not as great as that of some of my hon. Friends and I make a few errors in what I say, I hope that I shall be forgiven. I am sure that most of them would be able to explain what these provisions mean. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said, we have had an authorised version, and now a revised version is to be pub-

lished later. However, it seemed to me that these provisions had been produced in the original Hebrew. My only criticism of the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) was that I wondered if at times he was talking in English, so incomprehensible are the provisions of the Bill, even when explained by someone as lucid as my right hon. and learned Friend.
They raise matters of great importance to Parliament both now and for the future. It is a scandal that a Government should put through legislation which it is freely acknowledged is incomprehensible to laymen, to the average hon. Member and to highly trained people such as lawyers and others who have to administer its provisions.

Mr. Willey: As I have pointed out again and again, the Bill went through the House without a Closure being moved. If it is suggested, in view of that that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite allowed a Clause which was incomprehensible to go through without a full explanation, they neglected their duty as hon. Members.

Mr. Channon: If the Minister puts forward that argument seriously, it underlines the complete lack of logical reasoning power which he has shown throughout the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Graham Page: Perhaps the Minister would say how many times we voted against Clauses in Committee, on Report, and against the Bill itself.

Mr. Channon: Before the Minister intervenes to answer that question, I would emphasise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has pointed out, that we have opposed the Bill on every possible occasion. The Minister is delighted that he did not have to move the Closure. It is as well that the Government Chief Whip is not here, because, if that is a doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman puts forward for the guidance of future opposition, he will not find himself very popular with his right hon. Friend the Chief Whip.
I have been trying to understand these provisions. It is a disgrace that not only are they put forward in such an incomprehensible form, but that the House should have been given so little time to understand them. As the hon. Member for Orpington and others have


pointed out, it is extraordinary that, in the case of some of these Measures, it is still impossible to get the relevant documents. A number of them have been printed only recently, yet this Act is to come into force on 6th April, with the immense consequences which flow from it.
I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary told the House recently that he had arranged for 500,000 copies of these Regulations to be printed. There have been three reprints, and even now the printers have not been able to get them completely right. We know what an excellent service Her Majesty's Stationery Office does for this House and for the Government. When a Government introduce a Bill which is so complicated that the printers cannot get Regulations completely right even at the third reprint, obviously it is the Government's Bill which is at fault and not the printers.
The Minister made a passing reference to the change in Bank Rate, and it appears that one of the Regulations which we are asked to pass this morning already is virtually out of date. He said that he would change the rate of interest to 6½ per cent. for those who do not pay the levy and have to pay interest to the Commission or to whom the Commission has to pay if they have overpaid. This morning he said that Bank Rate has gone down and that he may have to change that. The House is entitled to know the Minister's intentions. Does he want us to pass this Motion or not? If he does, how long will the provision last and on what basis are people to make plans for the future? Is it not a courtesy to the House, with the appointed day only a few days off, that the Minister should come before it with Orders which will stand the test of time?
What is his intention under the Betterment Levy (Rate of Interest) Order, 1967, in which he prescribes the rate of interest to be 6½ per cent. per annum? That is the rate of interest under Section 51 of the Land Commission Act. Looking at that Section, it appears that the Treasury can make Orders from time to time, but it is not good enough for the Minister to say that this Order is one which he will ask us to repeal in about a week's time. What are his plans, and why can we not have Regulations

in a proper form before we come to discuss them?

Mr. Lubbock: If it is the Government's intention always to reduce the rate of interest as prescribed by Statutory Instrument No. 366 whenever there is a fall in Bank Rate, it would be better to take this Order away and bring before the House another Order prescribing that the rate of interest shall be the Bank Rate "for the time being".

Mr. Channon: That is an extremely valuable point, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with it when he replies to the debate. It seems likely, otherwise, that we shall have a whole series of Orders changing the position as years go by. This is one small example of the extremely complicated way in which this Act has been brought forward and these Regulations are being laid before us.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) was too generous to the Government when dealing with page 13 of the notorious Regulations dealing with the Betterment Levy (Tenancies and Reversions) Regulations which came in for a great deal of criticism from my right hon. and learned Friend the hon. Member for Hexham. The more one looks at it the more one feels that it is an abuse of Parliament to have an Explanatory Memorandum which fails so totally in its purpose—which is to explain.
The bottom paragraph on page 13—I am sorry to weary the House by reading it out—shows what nonsense the Government are producing. It says:
The adaptations made to Schedule 5 in relation to a reversion arise from the fact that in law the reversion is the same interest (though now subject to another interest) as existed before the grant of the tenancy. The last relevant disposition of that interest is therefore the transaction by which the chargeable owner acquired it before that grant. But, where the tenancy is granted after the first appointed day, an assessment of levy will have been made, and, as in the case of expenditure on improvements or ancillary rights, the proportion T/T+R of the consideration given for that disposition will have been allowed as his Schedule 5 base value on the Case B assessment on the grant of the tenancy. Accordingly only R/T+R of that consideration remains to be taken into account on an


assessment of levy affecting the reversion, and this is provided for by Regulation 8(3)(b).
I certainly cannot understand it, and if the Parliamentary Secretary can understand it, perhaps he will tell us what it means when he winds up the debate tomorrow night. The House knows perfectly well that my hon. Friends and I are bitterly opposed to this Bill, which we think to be completely unworkable, and to be a gross distortion of individual rights, because it is so incomprehensible. We are delighted that we are pledged to repeal the Act at the earliest opportunity. What I complain about is that these Regulations should have been laid before the House in a manner in which they are totally unintelligible to the public, to the average Member of this House, and I suspect jolly nearly unintelligible to even the most well-informed Members of the House. This is a state of affairs which the House of Commons should never tolerate. My right hon. and hon. Friends are quite right to complain about having been brought in this Monday morning at great inconvenience.
The Government have been unable to find any supporters for these Regulations. The Government are introducing a tax which will raise a great deal of money, but they have given no indication of its yield. They have introduced one Order, which the Minister said he is going to change virtually at once.
Inadequate notice has been given to the House and to the public. The appointed day is far too soon. No one can appreciate the complexities and the difficulties which will face him under the Land Commission Act, and the Act and the Regulations which have been laid under it, represent one more arbitrary extension of the State's power in a way which will cripple the rights of the individual more than he at present realises. Very few people realise the extent of the provisions which the Government have put forward in this way.
I strongly oppose the Regulations. They are not the sort of benevolent things which the Minister said they were when he introduced them. This is an attack on individual liberties, and I resent very much being asked to pass a set of Regulations which are totally incomprehensible to even the most well-informed hon. Members in this House.

12.24 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I want to limit my comments to the issue of the first appointed day. That is the essential ingredient of many of the comments which have been made. I am not qualified to judge the merits or demerits of this Act to any great degree, and I do not think that I am alone in that. The confusion which is already present, and which undoubtedly will follow from the administration of the Act, and the Statutory Instruments which we are considering this morning, will put a great demand on the time of professional people, and will be a great embarrassment to those engaged in the use and development of land.
We were all surprised this morning to hear the views of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) on the unavailability of the booklets.

Mr. Willey: They are not unavailable. They are in the hands of local authorities, citizens advice bureaux, and such bodies. Some local authorities have disposed of all their copies, and we are reprinting them. The booklets are not out of print. I would say to the hon. Member for Orpington that I regret the difficulties he has had, and I will see that they are overcome.

Mr. Jones: That explanation from the right hon. Gentleman confirms the very unsatisfactory situation with which Members of this House and the public are faced.

Mr. Murton: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said, my hon. Friend may be interested to know that my copy of Statutory Instrument 298 goes from page 2 to page 7 and then from page 10 to page 15. Not being clever at this sort of thing, I find it even more difficult when half of it is missing.

Mr. Jones: The Land Commission is not a new idea. The right hon. Gentleman has been hammering away at this for 18 months or two years. Why is it that the wretched thing is coming into force a fortnight on Thursday and we are left in this position in regard to the explanatory memorandum and the booklets which are not available to the professions and to those in the building industry? It is quite a ridiculous state of affairs. The right hon. Gentleman


has made no apology for this. That is what surprises me. In one of his earlier interventions, he spoke as though it were somebody else's misjudgment that led to their having to have second and third reprints, and that it was a fault which lay with the printer. But this is part of the administration. It represents a complete failure.
The timing has been well known for many months. What is the explanation for the unavailability of adequate material or explanation of the tight schedule which has developed as the result of the Government's programme? Is it that the Government are having to rush this Measure through after all the time and consideration it has had both in the House and in Committee? Is it a complete misjudgment of the interest which the public would of necessity have to show, as well as that of local authorities and those engaged in the building and development of land? Where does the fault lie? Why is it necessary to hasten the matter at the last minute in this way?
Is there something significant about 6th April? It has nothing to do with the annual tax year. It could have been the 6th of any month, surely? I cannot see what possible explanation the Minis-

ter can give. The hastening of this matter is not only an embarrassment to himself and his colleagues, and to the House in general, but it is also an embarrassment to the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) mentioned earlier that planning authorities are having great problems because of the flood of applications which are reaching their offices. There will be no equity in the way in which planning applications, received hastily at the last minute, are dealt with. There will be great hardship on owners and would-be developers, and there will be great criticism by local authorities, as well as planning authorities, all following from this apparent misjudgment of timing. It can be nothing more.
There is no ill will within the Government, I am sure. It is a failure of administration. It is a failure in programming the thing successfully. I should have thought that we would have had an apology from the Minister on be half of himself and his colleagues. Can we be assured that the offices, which are all so neatly set out at the back of these explanatory notes—

It being half-past Twelve o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

ZAMBIA (AID)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

12.30 p.m.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: On the Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 1, I propose to raise the subject of aid to Zambia. This subject is, of course, inseparable from the policies of Her Majesty's Government in proceeding with sanctions against Rhodesia. I am wholly opposed to this policy.
The extent of the aid which today is being given by Britain to Zambia is consequential on the sanctions policy against Rhodesia. The country which has been hurt most by the policy of sanctions against Rhodesia is Zambia. Britain has been hurt next most. Rhodesia has been hurt least of all, and it seems to me notable, from the reports in the Financial Times this morning, that little difference has been made to the Rhodesian economy by the policy of sanctions, though we in Britain are being called upon, on an increasing scale, to give financial and other forms of aid to Zambia.
The purpose of this Adjournment debate is to try to elucidate and drag from the mouths of the Government a detailed statement of the forms of aid which we are giving Zambia. All the Parliamentary Questions on this topic have led to inconclusive replies, one Department shuffling off the answer against another Department, and it has been wholly impossible for my hon. Friends and myself to find out what is the aggregation of aid to Zambia proposed in this year.
First, I want to refer to the gravest consequence of the Prime Minister's adventure in the form of Rhodesian sanctions which is the alienation of opinion in Zambia against Britain. As a result of this there has been a very large loss of British trade in Central Africa. This was summarised in an article headed "Trade Blow to Britain" by Mr. Peter Younghusband in Lusaka, and printed in the Daily Mail on 9th January, 1967, when he said:
Britain's dispute with Rhodesia is costing far more than Whitehall will admit. Zambia, disillusioned with Mr. Wilson's handling of the issue, is giving rich contracts to European and Japanese firms. Once they would have gone to Britain.

All the efforts by my hon. Friends and myself, and, in particular, by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), to secure details of monetary and economic aid to Zambia have met with the reply from the hon. Gentleman's Ministry that this year's aid amounts to £13·85 million, and that it is all tied aid. The Answer given by the hon. Gentleman's Department to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) last Thursday was:
Under the agreement with the Zambian Government grants of up to £13·85 million will be made for the following purposes:

(i) Development, including some tar surfacing, of the main road links between Zambia Tanzania and Malawi.
(ii) Improvement of the capacity for Zambian cargo at Tanzanian ports.
(iii) Provision of British heavy road vehicles and railway wagons.
(iv) Development of Mtwara airfield for Zambian traffic.
(v) Assistance with new coal mine and power projects in Zambia.
(vi) A contribution, at the request of the Zambian Government, of £250,000 to an airlift of aviation turbine fuel into Zambia by Laker Airways, a British independent airline."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 147.]
The total of that aid is said to be £13.85 million, but it appears to me that it represents only a relatively small part of the aid which is flowing from Britain to Zambia.
At various times during this Parliamentary Session Ministers have referred to "aid to Zambia", "assistance to Zambia", "grants to Zambia", and "loans to Zambia". My first purpose this morning is to find out what sums of money are being given or lent by Britain to Zambia, apart from the declaration of £13·85 million of direct aid which the right hon. Gentleman said last Thursday was tied aid, because I am pleading for a policy of entirely tied aid, call it if one will British-African Tied Aid, B.A.T.A. I am saying that all forms of aid, or assistance, or grants, or loans from Britain to Zambia should be tied. They should permit expenditure by Zambia only on British goods and services and should not be expended with our European industrial competitors, or others, such as the Japanese. The hon. Gentleman will, I think, forgive the suspicions which my hon. Friends and I have.
Under the heading "Switch," the Daily Mail of 9th January, 1967, also said:
A £20-million contract to build the 1,100-mile pipeline from Zambia on the coast was taken from the British company Lonrho and given to the Italian group ENI.
The switch occurred while Zambia's President Kaunda was in Rome homeward bound from Chile. He had pointedly avoided visiting London and spoke publicly of Mr. Wilson's 'deceitful and dishonest ways'.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not rise and give us the academic answer that £13·85 million of aid from his Department is tied to British orders. This is not enough. Britain is giving generous financial aid to Zambia. Zambia does not reciprocate our generosity. Zambia displays the utmost animosity towards Britain and delights in the practice of kicking us in the wrong place. In return for our generous financial aid, Zambia deliberately discriminates economically against Britain. My information, from a most excellent source, is that our tenders for this long pipeline were lower than that of the Italians, that the delivery of the pipes would have been faster than by the Italians, and that the pipeline would have been operational under British contractors earlier than under the Italians, but the animus displayed by President Kaunda towards our Prime Minister was so great as to cause him to guide the Zambians in placing this important contract with our industrial competitors.
The Daily Mail, in the article to which I have referred, quoted an editorial in The Times of Zambia which said:
We have seen Britain discredited as both a world power and the moral head of the Commonwealth during the past year of evasions on the Rhodesian issue. It has opened the eyes of Zambia and many other Commonwealth countries.
The Daily Mail went on to say:
To Britain's losses in Zambia must be added the losses in Rhodesia, admitted by the British Government to be £30 million in export trade as a direct result of sanctions.
Indirectly the loss has been far more. In spite of international sanctions agreements foreign competitors are there too, grabbing the vacated British markets.
All that underlines my statement that the generosity of Britain towards Zambia is repaid by a policy of discrimination against British goods which is wholly harmful to our trading interests. Last

Thursday my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and I raised the question of tied aid. My hon. Friend said:
Can the hon. Gentleman explain why all the major Zambian Government contracts since last summer have been placed with Italian, French, American, Japanese and Yugoslav firms—the Yugoslav contract worth over £20 million, at a time when the British taxpayer was paying £15 million towards Zambia? Should we not have a quid pro quo?
to which the Parliamentary Secretary replied in the most guarded terms—and this shows the disingenuous if not ambiguous character of the answer. The hon. Gentleman said:
The question relates to the provision of British aid, and the contracts to which the hon. Member referred are not financed in that way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 689.]
If they are not financed with British aid, "in that way", will the hon. Gentleman tell us how they are financed? Will he tell us this morning what is aid, what is assistance, what are loans, and what are grants? Will he tell us how much money, in all, the British taxpayer is furnishing for Zambian aid? Is this aid all tied?
Are not we entitled to say that not only the £13·85 million should be spent on British goods and services, but that in return for our generosity all contracts for economic and financial development in Zambia should be placed in Britain? I thoroughly resent African emergent States—highly nationalistic in character—demanding large sums of money from us, passing round an ever deeper begging bowl for our financial subventions, and then harming us financially by outpouring our reserves from the sterling area and placing contracts with Italians, Germans and the rest—countries which are supposed to be operating selective mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia, and often do not.
On behalf of British exporters everywhere, I thoroughly resent our gifts to Zambia being used for the purpose of subsidising our European industrial competitors, as well as the Americans and the Japanese, because of the specious assurances given by our Prime Minister to the Zambians at the last Commonwealth conference. The pipeline contract to which I have referred would have been invaluable to the British steel industry, which in its present debilitated condition due to the Government's financial,


economic policies is working at only 70 per cent. of capacity. The pipeline contract has now been awarded to the Italians.
In my judgment, it is futile for the Prime Minister and other members of his Cabinet to exhort British manufacturers—in spite of their magnificent export achievements during the last few months—to make even greater export efforts while the Prime Minister and his colleagues deliberately undermine their markets abroad by political blundering and miscalculations of the kind manifest in their policies of non-tied aid to Zambia and other African countries.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) nor myself are in any way anti-Zambia, but we feel that British taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent. Since November, 1965, with the declaration of U.D.I., the British taxpayer has put a great deal of money into Zambia, first, by way of military aid for example in respect of Javelin squadrons. I should like to know how much that cost, and also from whom the Javelins were to protect Zambia. Is it suggested that they were to protect Zambia against Rhodesia? That would be nonsense.
Zambia regards this money not as aid but compensation for U.D.I., because they regard the Rhodesian situation as being the fault of the British Government. Therefore I repeat my hon. Friend's question: is this sum of nearly £14 million to be regarded as aid? Is it tied? Is any other aid going to Zambia, for instance, to help their students, or their budget? Zambia is one of the richest countries in Africa; what other normal aid is going to Zambia, and how is this aid tied?
My hon. Friend has referred to the way in which foreign firms seem to attract the major Zambian foreign contracts. He mentioned Italy. In that connection I refer to the Fiat Tanzam contract, worth £5 million; the contract for the Tanzania oil pipeline, worth £16 million—for both of which contracts British firms tendered—to the fact that Alitalia has been allowed to operate from Zambia, which she was not allowed to do before, and will probably operate

Zambia Airways if and when the Central African Airways break up, also that Italian contractors are said to be favourites for the Kafue hydro-electric project, which is worth £25 million.
It is alleged that estimates from British firms are shown to foreign Governments by somebody in the Zambian Ministry so that we can be deliberately undercut. I do not know whether that is true, but that is the rumour going round Lusaka, and it could explain what has been happening. The Minister has a duty to the British taxpayers to explain how these large sums of money, which are going to one of the richest countries in Africa, are being spent, in what way this money is tied to British firms, and why the Zambian Government in return for this aid or compensation have placed all their major contracts with foreign firms. I have mentioned Italian firms, but the Japanese have a contract to supply 800 rail trucks and the Americans have a contract to supply 26 new diesel motor locomotives. Yugoslavia is consulted on most major building contracts, France is developing the coal mines in Zambia, and so on. Many countries are involved, but not one single major Zambian Government contract since the summer of last year has been awarded to a British firm. Why? Broadly speaking, our firms are competitive with foreign firms. It is an extraordinary situation.
I echo the wise words with which my hon. Friend began his speech. Sanctions, and the whole related policy adopted by Her Majesty's Government, are affecting, first, the economy of Zambia, secondly, the economy of this country, and lastly, the economy of Rhodesia. What they have done is to so unite the Rhodesian nation—both black and white—that it is now prepared to fight the majority of the world.

12.50 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry for Overseas Development (Mr. Albert E. Oram): Both the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) have pointed to the fact that this debate is inevitably linked with political and trading considerations. Therefore, we cannot avoid a somewhat confused approach to the question. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South said that his main purpose was to obtain a


statement from the Government about the aid being provided for Zambia in order to clear up a number of misconceptions which he claims to have arisen recently.
I agree that there have been some misconceptions—and they lingered in the hon. Gentleman's speech. For instance, he referred to the £13·85 million that is being provided by my Department this year. This is the complete reverse of the case. This sum is the contingency fund provided by the Commonwealth Secretary. I understood that the hon. Member was going to raise the question of development aid. He was courteous enough to write to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations that he would talk about this, rather than contingency funds, which is why I am replying instead of my hon. Friend. I will proceed to do what I can, and I agree that it is desirable to have as clear a statement as possible of the aid provided.
There are, broadly, three categories of aid. There is development aid, under my Ministry, defence aid and this large sum of contingency assistance. Development aid consists of a loan of £3 million to meet the cost of compensation for expatriate officers, that is to say, it is related to personnel. We also provide assistance tawards the cost of expatriate staff still serving in Zambia under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme which we sponsor, amounting to about £3 million a year. All this is clearly spent on the provision of British services. It is provided only to British personnel and there is no doubt about its being tied.
Then there is the sum for technical assistance, which is not a great amount, about £¼ million, which is used for the provision of British experts and consultants and some equipment. This also is fully tied to British goods and services. As I pointed out in an Answer last Thursday, we have made a grant of £1 million for the building of the second phase of the University College.
About 40 per cent. of this is tied to British goods and services, and in case the hon. Gentleman wonders about the other 60 per cent., it is almost entirely used for local costs. It is a feature of our aid operations that we tie as far as possible either to contracts placed in Britain or for the payment of local

Zambian costs. I am sure that he will recognise that there are local costs which have to be met in this way.
My Ministry has provided also for a £10 million loan over the next two or three years, which is expected to be disbursed in 1969–70 and 1970–71. Of this, £2 million is for defence aid, which is also entirely tied to British equipment. The details of how the other £8 million will be disbursed remain to be negotiated, but our usual stipulations about the tying of aid to British goods and services will apply in our negotiations.
Now we come to the sum of money particularly referred to by the two hon. Gentlemen. What I have dealt with so far is that which comes under my Ministry, but the £13·85 million is that which has arisen out of the special circumstances following U.D.I. This was to help Zambia with the immediate difficulties created by that situation. I am not going into the rights and wrongs, on which we have differing views, but this is what we mean by the contingency fund assistance. My hon. Friend the other Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations made clear the distinction that this was not development aid but assistance for short-term purposes like the air-lift and the provision of such things as British locomotives, rolling stock, heavy lorries, petrol tankers and airport equipment needed to deal with the immediate situation.
This, too—as to the vast bulk, as the Prime Minister and other Ministers have made clear—is also tied to British aid. Then we come to the contracts, which are a different issue—

Mr. Wall: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the total aggregate this year is about £14,500,000 in his Department, plus the £13·85 million?

Mr. Oram: No, that from my Department is about £3 million in regard to compensation to personnel and a continuing £3 million per year for O.S.A.S. One is compensation and one for continuing services, plus the technical assistance of £¼ million—

Mr. Wall: And defence?

Mr. Oram: Defence aid is part of the £10 million. Perhaps I did not make my self clear—

Mr. Wall: Is that £8 million from this fund or from the other one?

Mr. Oram: It comes from our funds, but that is not being disbursed and does not relate to this year. It is a loan which we have promised. The details have not been worked out, but it will be disbursed in succeeding years.
The hon. Gentleman will probably recognise that trade is not my field, although it is clearly related. Whatever may have happened in what he referred to as Central Africa, United Kingdom exports as a whole to Zambia do not appear to have suffered. As the President of the Board of Trade pointed out recently, United Kingdom exports in 1965 were £15·1 million and in 1966 had gone up to £26·3 million. So we were benefiting in that sense from our relationships with Zambia, and there is an upstepping of £10 million in our exports—

Sir G. Nabarro: But did Zambia pay for them; was it long-term credits or was it unrequited exports against grants in aid for the future? This is what we are trying to get at.

Mr. Oram: I have explained what funds go from this country to Zambia and they clearly have not covered the commercial aspects of the exports—

Sir G. Nabarro: Are they paid for?

Mr. Oram: In some cases they include the equipment, which is covered by aid, and in other cases not. We recognise that we have an obligation—

Sir G. Nabarro: I am sorry to cut down on the time for the hon. Gentleman's reply, but he has again used the word "aid". What is this aid in the context of these exports? Are our exports unrequited? Are they being paid for in Zambian currency or set off against some hypothetical reduction at some indeterminate future date?

Mr. Oram: I am sorry if I used the word "aid". My hon. Friend suggested that we should try to keep a distinction between development aid, which is the long-term provision of loans, and the immediate assistance of the current period. I have no doubt that if these exports were analysed they would be of three kinds—some paid for out of funds provided by our Ministry, some out of funds provided under the Commonwealth Office—

It being One o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the sitting till half-past Two o'clock, pursuant to Order.

Sitting resumed at 2.30

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

St. Albans Hospital (Private Beds)

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Minister of Health what requests he has received for an increase in the allocation of private beds at St. Albans Hospital; and what reply he has given.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): None, Sir, in the last 12 months.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that out of 400 beds in St. Albans Hospital, there are only four private beds? Is he aware that, as a result of this, one of the surgeons in the area recently had to wait for four weeks to obtain the admittance to a bed of a woman patient suffering from cancer of the breast and that, despite requests from the Group Secretary, his Ministry refused to designate a bed for this case? Will he, therefore, look at the whole question of the number of private beds?

Mr. Robinson: There is also a waiting list for National Health Service patients at this hospital and I am told that the occupancy rate of paying patients was only 67 per cent. in 1965. I have not yet arrived at a final decision for the number of pay beds for the region as a whole but I have told the board that I shall be prepared to agree with its recommendation for St. Albans Hospital, which is that there should be no change in the present position.

Laundries (Costing System)

Sir R. Russell: asked the Minister of Health if he will instruct the hospital service to adopt a costing system for its laundries which will make possible a comparison with the contract prices of commercial laundries.

Mr. K. Robinson: The system at present in use is intended primarily to inform managements of the cost of their own laundry work at all times, and to enable them to compare it with the cost of

other hospital laundries, but it can easily be applied to comparison with the cost of other types of laundry.

Sir R. Russell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases the cost of land, buildings and plant are not included when reckoning total costs and would not he agree that the interest on these costs should be taken into consideration so that comparisons can be made with commercial laundries?

Mr. Robinson: I believe that the system enables this comparison to be made. Certainly depreciation charges for equipment are already included. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that, because of its special nature, not all commercial laundries are prepared to accept hospital laundry. In many areas, it is not possible to obtain competitive tenders.

Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hospital costing returns show enormously wide variations and that in some hospitals the costs are six times greater than in others? What are the reasons for this and are they being investigated?

Mr. Robinson: Yes, Sir. We are keeping these costings under constant review. One likely reason is difference in size, because it is much more economic to run a laundry with a very large turnover than a small laundry. We are moving towards a system of group laundries, and this would be in the interests of efficiency.

New Hospital, Frimley

Sir E. Errington: asked the Minister of Health why, after having granted an interview to the hon. Member for Alder-shot and three other hon. Members of Parliament in regard to the possible construction of a new general district hospital at Frimley, he did not communicate with those Members who were interviewed by him of his decision to develop; and to what extent it is the practice of his Department for notification to be given to interested Members of Parliament and local authorities when further decisions are taken in regard to such hospitals.

Mr. K. Robinson: As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) on 13th February, my proposal for the Frimley hospital was part


of a wider national experiment in economical hospital design and was therefore announced centrally. Local hospital developments are normally settled by the regional hospital boards, and I could not undertake as a general rule to keep hon. Members or local authorities informed of all their decisions.—[Vol. 741, c. 72–3.]

Sir E. Errington: I wonder whether the Minister realises that the local Press knew nothing about this matter, and that the owners of the land on which the hospital is to be built knew nothing of it? Is there not some way in which people interested can be informed officially, and not hear through back-door channels?

Mr. Robinson: As I explained in my original Answer, this is the responsibility of the regional hospital board. In this instance, I certainly intended that the local Press should receive copies of the statement issued by my Department through the agency of the Press Association. This seems not to have happened, but I understand that representatives of the local Press were enabled by the regional board to cover the story very fully by 27th January, which was about as early as they could have done in any case.

Domiciliary Physiotherapy Unit (Northumberland)

Mr. R. W. Elliott: asked the Minister of Health if, following the success of the mobile physiotherapy service initiated by the Northumberland branch of the British Red Cross Society, he will now grant official recognition to this service and enable the hospital authorities to make a grant towards its cost.

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Health what reply he has sent to the hon. Member for Tynemouth to the letter sent on the request of the Chairman of the British Red Cross Society Mobile Physiotherapy Unit for recognition by his Department and her request for a deputation to include Dr. Hall, Dr. Grant and Dr. Tilley to discuss the future of this successful mobile physiotherapy service.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): My right hon. Friend has written to the

hon. Members explaining why he is unable to accept that this service should be a charge on National Health Service funds.

Mr. Elliott: I thank the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend for writing to us on this subject, but is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the organisers of this very well-thought-out pilot scheme will be most disappointed with the terms of those letters? Is he aware of the success of the scheme? Does he know that hospital beds have been saved by it? Is he further aware that the physiotherapists used are part-time, and that there is a six-week waiting period in our teaching hospital in Newcastle for routine physiotherapy?

Mr. Snow: I should like to examine the hon. Gentleman's statement about the waiting list in the teaching hospital. Our information is, generally speaking, that there are no waiting lists.

Dame Irene Ward: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I think that this is a most retrograde step? If I might just switch to the right hon. Gentleman—the so-called democratic Minister—does he think that it is right to refuse to receive a deputation consisting of the medical officer of health for the County of Northumberland, distinguished doctors in the north of England, and the British Red Cross Society, all of whom are connected with the running of the scheme? Is he aware that they have had an enormous success with it? What business does he think it is of his not to approve of a new pilot scheme that would have done an enormous amount of good work for patients in the north of England? Is he aware that I think that this is a really lamentable decision, and I wish that I could think of some way—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that supplementary question is long enough.

Dame Irene Ward: Then I will write to the Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Snow.

Mr. Snow: I think that the hon. Lady will understand—

Dame Irene Ward: I do not.

Mr. Snow: —that only one Minister can answer a Question. I am in process of answering two Questions at the present


moment. My right hon. Friend was advised on the highest possible medical authority that physiotherapy should remain, as it always has been, under the control of the hospital authority.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Do not my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend realise that there is very deep concern in the North-East about this matter, and that very strong representation was made by the geriatrician in charge, and all medical opinion I know in the North-East on the issue, that unless this provision is made available it is a question of no provision at all?

Dame Irene Ward: Hear, hear.

Mr. Snow: I am rather surprised to hear my hon. Friend's last remark since, with the possible exception of the teaching hospital, as I have said, we have no information of a waiting list at hospitals in the area.

Mr. Braine: That Answer is really most unsatisfactory. In view of the fact that a domiciliary service like this saves hospital beds, and makes use of trained physiotherapists who are not available for work in the hospitals, that this is a voluntary service, and that the local hospital itself is in favour of it, will not the hon. Gentleman look at the matter again?

Mr. Snow: One has no desire to be dogmatic about these things. The fact of the matter is that these part-time physiotherapists can in the normal course of events—and I am not talking now of this particular locality—be considered for employment in hospitals. I repeat that my right hon. Friend's advice from the highest medical authority is that physiotherapy should remain under the direct control of the hospital authority.

Mr. Braine: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary seized of the fact that there is an acute shortage of physiotherapists in the hospitals, and that there are married women physiotherapists who can work part time but not in the hospitals? This is an ideal scheme for drawing them into the service. As this service would not otherwise be available for patients, will he look at the matter again?

Mr. Snow: The subject has been looked at at very great length. Incidentally, my Department is extremely sorry

for the delay in replying to one letter on the subject, but this was due to the fact that it was being considered very fully and at great length. If the hon. Gentleman has any information as to the inability to employ part-time physiotherapists, perhaps he will let me know.

Mr. Elliott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Due to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I also will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

Building Supervisors and Group Engineers

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Minister of Health if he will issue a directive to hospital authorities to implement the recommendation of the Study Group on the Work, Grading, Training and Qualifications of Hospital Engineers, that building supervisors should have full technical and managerial responsibility for their own departments.

Mr. Snow: No, Sir. Hospital authorities have been advised to have regard to this recommendation, but it is for them to decide in the light of local circumstances how the duties of building supervisors and group engineers should be related.

Mr. Watkins: I appreciate that point, but is my hon. Friend aware that there is great dissatisfaction among building supervisors because of their inferior standing and salary in comparison with group engineers?

Mr. Snow: The present position is that hospital authorities have discretion whether to employ a building supervisor to be in charge of building maintenance, or to place both engineering and building maintenance under the control of the group engineer. Local circumstances call for different solutions, but my right hon. Friend is at present conducting an inquiry into the organisation of hospital building maintenance which will include the duties of the category of persons to whom my hon. Friend refers.

New Hospital, Dawley New Town

Mr. Fowler: asked the Minister of Health when work will begin on the new general hospital for Dawley New Town in Shropshire.

Mr. Snow: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend on 19th July, 1966.—[Vol. 732, c. 64-5.]

Mr. Fowler: Is my hon. Friend aware that a new town for 90,000 people is already being built in this area and that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has a proposal to more than double its size? In view of the length of time it takes to build a hospital, the Ministry of Health may well be caught with its pants down. Will my hon. Friend give an early and firm date for the beginning of this hospital?

Mr. Snow: I can assure my hon. Friend that he can teach me nothing about the requirements of overspill receiving areas, but I should tell him that a site has been provisionally reserved for the hospital and that, in the meantime, services are being provided at certain local hospitals, and a general range of hospital services in Shrewsbury.

Mr. More: Has the Minister secured the agreement of his colleague the Minister of Housing and Local Government to the time schedule for the hospital? Is it appreciated that unless these hospital services are provided in good time it will not be possible to expand the new town or get it off the ground properly at all?

Mr. Snow: This is largely a matter for the regional boards, which have to determine their priorities in these matters, but I can appreciate the anxieties of people in these new towns.

Mr. Biffen: In view of the widespread concern throughout Shropshire that the medical facilities will be under great strain with the building of the new town, may I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary can give an undertaking that the general hospital at Whitchurch will not be closed?

Mr. Snow: I should like to have a look at that point.

Home-Produced Textiles

Mr. Mapp: asked the Minister of Health whether he will require hospital boards to obtain quotations for home-produced textiles before contracts for such materials are agreed.

Mr. Snow: No, Sir; but hospital authorities generally follow this practice.

Mr. Mapp: Why not, when the Ministry of Defence last week was able to show that 90 per cent. of its purchases of textiles were of home-produced goods? What is in the way of the Minister advising regional hospital boards to obtain two such quotations? Is there no direction that one of the two must be taken?

Mr. Snow: Oh, no. What I was attempting to show was that under existing treaty commitments, for instance, E.F.T.A. countries are entitled to compete for hospital business on an equal footing with home producers. Under the Commonwealth Trade and Economic Conference Agreement of 1958, public purchasing authorities are expected to seek to inform themselves of the possibilities of competitive purchasing from Commonwealth sources. It is a matter for discretion by the board concerned. Sometimes a board may find it quicker and cheaper to purchase from abroad but these cases are relatively rare.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that linen from Ulster is both durable and attractive? Will he do his best to see that it is purchased?

Mr. Snow: Linen from Northern Ireland does not need compliments from me.

Sir D. Glover: The Parliamentary Secretary's reply is thoroughly unsatisfactory. Could he find how many exports from this country go into hospital services of E.F.T.A. countries, if he thinks that we should have this open and free competition, because we are not getting nearly enough advantage at present?

Mr. Snow: With notice I shall certainly try to give that information, but this was an E.F.T.A. agreement.

Mr. Mapp: On a point of order. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of


the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity on the Adjournment.

Nurses

Mr. Dean: asked the Minister of Health v/hat effects British membership of the European Economic Community would have on this country's nurses' training and qualification arrangements.

Mr. K. Robinson: I am advised that there would be no immediate effects on the arrangements for nurses' training and qualifications; but it is an aim of the Community to harmonise these arrangements in Member States.

Mr. Dean: In view of that, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is now a regular exchange of information between the health authorities in this country and those in the E.E.C. countries, which could be of mutual benefit?

Mr. Robinson: Of course we keep in touch. I understand that work is beginning in Brussels on defining minimum qualifications on the basis of which nurses would be able to practise in all member States and the possibility of drawing up a model basic training is being considered.

Mr. Pavitt: Can my right hon. Friend say if in the event of the interchange of medical qualifications being ratified on 1st January, 1968, this will cover nurses as well as doctors?

Mr. Robinson: No, I do not believe it would but there is a Question down for answer later on the medical arrangements.

Senior Nursing Staff (Salmon Report)

Mr. Dean: asked the Minister of Health what action he now proposes to take to implement the recommendations of the Salmon Report on Senior Nursing Staff Structure.

Mr. K. Robinson: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson), on 6th March, 1967.—[Vol. 742, c. 186–7.]

Mr. Dean: Arising from the Answer on 6th March, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any pilot studies are now in operation to try out the proposed

new system relating to grading and distribution?

Mr. Robinson: No, they are not yet in operation; but I shall be writing to hospital boards in the next week or two asking them to assist in the selection of about 20 groups where the scheme can be introduced and tested.

Mr. Braine: Before writing to the boards, is the right hon. Gentleman having consultations with the nursing organisations? Is he aware that the Royal College of Nursing regretted very much that in the Salmon Report nursing education is not separated from the nursing service and is very worried about the position of nursing tutors? Is the right hon. Gentleman doing anything about this before he implements the Report?

Mr. Robinson: On the question of tutors, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would put down the Question. Of course there had been full consultation before the announcement of my decision.

United Liverpool Hospitals (Appointments)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Health whether he will now make a statement on his investigations into complaints raised with him by Dr. M. D. Readett regarding certain appointments made by the United Liverpool Hospitals.

Mr. K. Robinson: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on 19th July, 1965.—[Vol. 716, c. 1105–6.]

Mr. Brooks: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that substantial developments have taken place since then and that the whole story gets curiouser and curiouser the more the correspondence is pursued? Will he agree that undoubtedly there have been irregularities and a full inquiry should be undertaken?

Mr. Robinson: I have studied the very voluminous file on this case most carefully and all the representations and complaints made to the United Liverpool Hospitals have been most carefully considered. I am satisfied that no invalid appointment has been made.

Mr. Heffer: In view of the fact that complaints have not only come from Doctor Readett and there is great concern in the medical profession in the City of Liverpool, would not my right hon. Friend agree that this indicates the need to look at the matter again and to have a full inquiry into it?

Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. If I thought there were grounds for a full inquiry I would have ordered one, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I have taken into account all the representations from Dr. Readett and other doctors and other hon. Members.

Patients (Accommodation)

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: asked the Minister of Health how many health services patients are on the average accommodated at any given moment in establishments other than those under the direct control of the hospital authorities; and how much more or less it costs for each patient than if the patient concerned were accommodated in an establishment under the direct control of the authority concerned.

Mr. K. Robinson: About 4,960 hospital patients, most of whom are in chronic sick, mental subnormality or convalescence beds. In reply to the last part of the Question I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table of comparative figures.

Following is the information:


COMPARATIVE AVERAGE COST PER PATIENT/WEEK



"Contractual" beds
National Health Service hospitals*



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Chronic Sick
12
18
11
17
6
5


Mental subnormality
6
19
0
10
17
8


Convalescence
10
9
5
16
15
2


* Average for year ended 31st March, 1966.

St. Teresa's Maternity Hospital, Wimbledon

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Health (1) what steps he is taking to prevent a reduction in the numbers of maternity beds serving the Kingston and Maiden area; and

(2) why, in view of the valuable work done by St. Teresa's Hospital, Wimbledon, to provide maternity beds for the

use of mothers in Maiden and Kingston, he has decided to withdraw financial support from this hospital.

Mr. K. Robinson: No reduction is proposed. A new maternity unit of 50 beds at Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, will replace the 40 beds now used at St. Teresa's Hospital. In addition 10 extra beds are to be provided at Queen Charlotte's Hospital and 12 at Kingston Hospital.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the Minister aware that last year he admitted to me that there was a shortage of beds in the area? Is he aware that the decision to abandon St. Teresa's as a maternity hospital has outraged local opinion and has created very bad relations between local opinion and the board? As his own Answer to me last week indicated that his alternative method of providing these beds was some 30 per cent. more expensive to the taxpayer, will he not reconsider the matter?

Mr. Robinson: No, Sir; I do not accept that the alternative provision will be 30 per cent. more expensive to the taxpayer, nor is it a question of abandoning this maternity hospital. The issue is the continued National Health Service subsidy for beds in a private maternity hospital which will be no longer needed by the National Health Service for that purpose after the end of the year.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek the earliest opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Minister of Health whether his Department will reconsider the decision taken by the Hospital Board to withdraw financial support for St. Teresa's Maternity Hospital, Wimbledon.

Mr. K. Robinson: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his Question on 13th March.—[Vol. 743, c. 27–8.]

Mr. Royle: Why is the Minister taking such an inhumane attitude? Is he aware that his replies to my right hon. Friend just now make it clear that a decision has been taken on ideological grounds, that a service must be provided within the Health Service regardless of either local wishes


or cost, and that local people are very concerned indeed at his attitude?

Mr. Robinson: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that this decision was made on ideological grounds, clearly his understanding and mine of the word are not the same. It is perfectly clear that as the hospital building programme advances there is bound to be a progressive reduction in the number of contractual arrangements with private establishments.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people who support him on general ideological grounds nevertheless believe that he has made a mistake in this matter? Would he receive a deputation from the women's section of the Putney Labour Party on the matter?

Mr. Robinson: I will consider all suggestions made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Royle: On a point of order. Again, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

General Practitioners (Hospital Services)

Dr. John Dunwoody: asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in the provision of open access for family doctors to hospital pathology, X-ray and physiotherapy services.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of Health what is his present policy with regard to the availability of hospital pathology, X-ray and physiotherapy services to doctors other than those employed in the hospital concerned.

Mr. K. Robinson: Almost all hospital management committees in England and Wales—apart from purely psychiatric groups—provide open access to pathology and X-ray services in at least one hospital. I am advised that physiotherapy should normally be prescribed by a consultant, but urgent cases may be accepted at the request of a general practitioner at the consultant's discretion.

Dr. Dunwoody: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's Answer, may I ask him to speed up this process, because these services reduce pressure on outpatient departments? Would he look

again at the question of out-patient physiotherapy, because there are many doctors who believe that much of the simple treatment is far more effectively ordered by the family doctor than through out-patient departments and the consultant service?

Mr. Robinson: I will certainly look again at the point raised by my hon. Friend. On the more general issue, I am sure that he will be glad to know that in 1958 5·6 per cent. of the total work done by pathology departments was for general practitioners. By 1965 this figure had risen to 8·8 per cent.

Mr. Cronin: Do not the figures my right hon. Friend has given show that the facilities available are still inadequate? Will he bear in mind that general practice is a highly technical exercise these days and that therefore it would greatly improve the efficiency of general practitioners if they had at their disposal other instruments than merely their fingers and their fountain pens?

Mr. Robinson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I should like to see a further expansion of this service, but I wanted to emphasise that it is expanding at a not unsatisfactory rate.

Electro-encephalograph Technicians

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the acute shortage of electro-encephalograph technicians in the hospital service; and what remedy he proposes to provide a satisfactory career structure.

Mr. Snow: I am not aware of a general shortage, and total numbers increased by more than 7 per cent. last year, but I know there are some local difficulties. A new grading structure was introduced in 1963 including a new chief technician grade.

Mr. Allason: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that some further improvement is required since 1963? What are the prospects for improvement in the pay and conditions of E.E.G. technicians?

Mr. Snow: Although the original pay award was granted in 1963, there have been two subsequent increases, and recruitment does not appear to be that bad. I am aware that there may be some area locally which is concerning


the hon. Member. Hospitals in the Mid-Herts Hospital Management Committee area are generally up to strength, but we know of one vacancy which we hope will be filled quite soon.

Motor Accidents (Hospital Charges)

Mr. Holland: asked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps either to revise the methods of recovery or wholly to remit the charges payable under the Road Traffic Act, 1960, on account of hospital or emergency treatment of persons involved in motor accidents.

Mr. K. Robinson: As I informed the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) on 27th June, 1966, I will bear this suggestion in mind but legislation would be required.—[Vol. 730, c. 1222–3.]

Mr. Holland: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that of an estimated £4¼ million liability to the hospital service in the year ended March, 1965, only just over £½ million was collected? Is it true that the high cost of collection makes these charges uneconomic?

Mr. Robinson: The amount collected was only about £600,000, and this is a matter which I am considering. All that I am suggesting is that it does not seem to justify a priority place in the legislative programme at the moment.

Artificial Kidney Units

Mr. Holland: asked the Minister of Health how many patients and how many doctors have died in the last year as a result of blood diseases contracted in hospital artificial kidney units.

Mr. K. Robinson: No patients suffering from chronic kidney failure, or doctors treating them, are known to have died from hepatitis contracted in artificial kidney units.

Mr. Holland: But would not the Minister agree that to operate these machines knowing the risk attached to them demands courage of the highest order? Can he say what progress is being made in research into finding ways and means of improving the safety factor, either by modifications to the machine or by improved safety clothing?

Mr. Robinson: This matter is being currently considered by the Working Party of experts which advises me. I entirely agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. A staff nurse died from hepatitis in May, 1965, an instrument porter in October, 1965, and a student laboratory worker in February, 1966—all at one hospital.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the inevitable risk at this stage of this potentially killing disease underlines the desirability of caution in the development of artificial kidney units?

Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming what I said in reply to supplementary questions on my recent statement. It is vitally important not to rush this matter.

Revenue

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health what has been the percentage increase in real money terms of hospital revenue over each of the last five financial years to a convenient date; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Robinson: About 2 per cent. in 1962–63 and 1963–64; about 2¾ per cent. in 1964–65, including a nonrecurring addition of £4 million; and 2¾ per cent. in 1965–66 and 1966–67.

Mr. Pavitt: Would my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of many hospital management committees which are glad to be out of the Selwyn Lloyd strait-jacket of 2 per cent.? Would he try to get it above 2¾ per cent.?

Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that the annual percentage of additions in real terms does not fully reflect the growth of the service. Any economies which hospitals achieve in the cost of running existing services represents extra money available for developments.

Mr. Dean: Would the Minister bear in mind that very substantial figures are involved? Has he read the recent valuable pamphlet by the Office of Health Economics emphasising the importance of management efficiency studies?

Mr. Robinson: Yes, I have. I understand that it might conceivably be raised later today or perhaps early tomorrow morning.

Hospital Chapels

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Minister of Health what proposals for the building of joint Christian chapels in National Health Service hospitals are currently under consideration; and what will be their estimated total cost.

Mr. Snow: New hospitals normally include a chapel for use by any denomination, and the redevelopment of existing hospitals often does so. The cost is not always separately identifiable, and figures are not collected centrally.

Dr. Kerr: Will my hon. Friend note that even irreclaimable atheists like myself pay tribute to the value of spiritual work done in hospitals by members of various denominations but that we are also concerned to see that surgeons need operating theatres and should get them, whereas spiritual ministers can operate very effectively without the use of chapels?

Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir. If I might say so, I think that that is a glimpse of the obvious, but the cost of chapels is very small, amounting to less than 0·5 per cent. of the cost of a whole hospital.

Wives (Hospital Treatment)

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Health whether, under National Health Service practice, a husband is entitled to countermand his wife's instructions for her own treatment in hospital; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir, though I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) on 21st November last.—[Vol. 736, c. 216.]

Mrs. Butler: Whilst I do not seek to minimise the rights of individuals to refuse particular forms of treatment on conscientious or personal grounds, is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern about the feudal rights that husbands appear to have in some cases? Could he comment on the recent case reported in the Press of a husband who was apparently able to refuse a blood transfusion to his wife although she was said to have given her consent to it beforehand?

Mr. Robinson: I would only comment to the extent of telling my hon. Friend that I am advised that a husband has no right to override his wife's wishes in the matter of treatment.

Loughborough (New Hospital)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of Health what plans he has for improving the hospital services available to the people of Loughborough and the adjoining areas.

Mr. Snow: The Sheffield Regional Hospital Board plans to provide a new hospital at Loughborough to replace the Loughborough General Hospital. Meanwhile improvements in the medical staffing are being considered.

Mr. Cronin: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great dissatisfaction felt by the people in Loughborough about the hospital service at present available? Does he realise that until two years ago there was a tolerably effective hospital service, but that now the casualty services are intermittent and acute surgical cases must make a long and dangerous journey to Leicester?

Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir. We are aware of these weaknesses in the service, but over the past years a total of £136,000 has been spent on capital works. Additional works are in hand, and there has been some upgrading of junior medical posts. This will come into effect when new flat accommodation is available. My hon. Friend has a case; the matter is being examined very urgently by the Regional Hospital Board.

Geriatric Beds, Walsall

Mr. William Wells: asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take to bring the proportion of beds available in geriatric wards for the population served by the Walsall Hospital Management Committee up to the national average for England and Wales.

Mr. Snow: Sixty-eight more geriatric beds are to be provided at Manor Hospital, Walsall, by 1970; proposals for building further geriatric wards after 1970 are being considered.

Mr. Wells: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that even the 68 beds will still leave us somewhat below the national


average—unless in the meantime there is a complete standstill in providing geriatric beds in the rest of the country—and that in a highly industrialised town such as Walsall demand for geriatric beds exceeds the national average rather than being below it?

Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir. It is a fact that at present the provision of geriatric beds is below the national average. But the further beds to be provided after 1970, of which I have given notice, will take account of expected increase in population and other changes in circumstances, including the possible loss of accommodation through a road widening scheme. We think that the provisions now programmed should meet the requirements.

Regional Hospital Boards (Press Relations)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Health whether he will issue an instruction to regional hospital boards to make more information available to the Press.

Mr. K. Robinson: I have already emphasised to regional hospital boards the importance of good relations with the Press on all matters of public interest.

Mr. Goodhart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at this month's meeting of the Bromley Hospital Management Committee no fewer than 15 items on the agenda were marked "Not for publication"? Can that really be right?

Mr. Robinson: I have gone into the matter. I understand that the Bromley Group Hospital Management Committee has for many years endeavoured to give the fullest possible facilities to the Press, but inevitably there are items from time to time which must, at any rate for the time being, remain confidential. I do not believe that the number was as great as that quoted by the hon. Gentleman. I can only repeat that my general advice to hospital management committees is as in my original Answer.

Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. Friend seek to use the services of the Press to get good notices about regional hospital boards well publicised? It seems to me at the moment that it is only when there is adverse criticism that the Press take the matter up.

Mr. Robinson: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I only wish I knew how.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Children (Limb-Fitting)

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Health what progress has now been made in achieving the 15-day period mentioned in his letter of 26th March, 1965, to the hon. Member for Rye, between measurements and trial fitting of a child's limb, and a similar period for the subsequent finishing work.

Mr. Snow: We have made good progress but are continuing to seek improvements.

Mr. Irvine: As I have been in correspondence with the Department for more than two years about this matter and have sent the Minister a great deal of evidence, may I ask why it still takes three months, from the time of the original order being placed, until limb-fitting finally occurs? Is he aware that I have information about one case, the original order for which was placed on 15th December last, and that, as far as I know, delivery has not yet been made? As his Ministry is unable to make any progress, perhaps I could visit both the workshops and limb-fitting centres, and make a report to him?

Mr. Snow: The hon. Gentleman must distinguish between what I would call the normal case of limb-fitting and the case where congenital deformities are involved, as in this case. The 15-day period originally mentioned did not take into account the time absorbed in transit, in making appointments and so on.

Private Medical Insurance

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Health what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards those institutions that seek to promote the provision of private medical insurance.

Mr. K. Robinson: Such institutions assist those people who want private medical facilities to pay for them; the Government's policy is to provide proper medical care under the National Health Service so that no one is compelled to seek private treatment in order to obtain it.

Mr. Biffen: Since it is now quite clear that the targets of the National Plan will not be realised and that this will affect the resources available for the National Health Service, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he would be more generous if he welcomed an expansion of the facilities offered by such bodies as the British United Provident Association?

Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. On many occasions I have given my views to the House. I certainly consider that any great increase in the area of private medical practice in the hospital service would be to the disadvantage of the vast majority of people.

Mr. Dean: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree, however, that these institutions bring in additional resources to the treatment of sickness and the care of patients and, as such, relieve pressure on the National Health Service and that they should be encouraged for this reason?

Mr. Robinson: The resources in this connection are not only financial. There are manpower resources, too, and, to the extent that private practice is expanded, that directs manpower resources away from the public sector.

Mr. Rose: Would my right hon. Friend utterly reject the philsophy implicit in the Question? Would not he agree that the result of this philosophy can only lead to varying standards of provision and neglect in the public sector?

Mr. Robinson: Yes, Sir, and that is what I am anxious to avoid.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he is unsympathetic to all institutions, such as Manor House Hospital, which are outside the National Health Service?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Cervical Cancer Tests (Birmingham)

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Minister of Health what action he is taking, in the light of the recent figures for December, 1966, to rectify the low level of availability of screening for cervical cancer in the Birmingham area.

Mr. Snow: The main difficulty is shortage of facilities for examining smears in hospital laboratories. Measures to increase the numbers examined are to be introduced on 1st April.

Mr. Price: While welcoming the increase just announced by the Minister, may I ask him if he is aware that the Birmingham area has consistently had almost the worst record in the country for cervical cancer screening? Will he pay particular attention to areas like Birmingham which, for one reason or another, seem to be lagging behind the rest of the country?

Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir, and it is for this reason that, from 1st April, there will be increased facilities, amounting in this instance to 40 smears a week being taken, in the Birmingham-West Bromwich areas. Examination will be done at St. Margaret's Hospital, Great Barr. Additional laboratory facilities will also be provided and an expanded capacity is being produced very quickly to examine smears at Selly Oak and in two other hospital areas.

Drug Addiction (Treatment)

Mr. R. W. Elliott: asked the Minister of Health if he will establish in the North-East of England a clinic for drug addicts, following recent disclosures on the spread of drug trafficking in the region.

Mr. K. Robinson: Facilities for the treatment of drug addiction are already available.

Mr. Elliott: Nevertheless, does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is a distressing number of cases of young people becoming drug addicts in the densely populated north-east of England? Will he see, as a matter of social necessity, that a clinic is available to deal with these young people before they become hopeless hospital cases?

Mr. Robinson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that treatment is available at hospitals in Newcastle and five other places in the region. My information is that the demand for such treatment is very small.

Mr. Braine: When the right hon. Gentleman talks of "facilities" he is


talking about treatment centres as recommended by the Brain Committee over a year ago? Is he aware that my hon. Friend is entitled to a clear answer about whether a treatment centre has been set up in accordance with the Brain Committee's recommendations?

Mr. Robinson: Treatment has been available for a considerable time. As I say, if any increase is needed in the region, because of some change in social circumstances, then of course it will be for the regional hospital board to expand these facilities to meet the demand, but my information is that the demand is not great.

Haemophiliacs (Cars)

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Health if he will issue suitably adapted small cars to haemophiliacs; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Scott: asked the Minister of Health whether he will extend the categories of disabled persons now eligible for a small car instead of an invalid tricycle to include severe haemophiliacs.

Mr. Snow: I would refer the hon. Members to my right hon. Friend's statement on 15th February. [Vol. 741, c. 523–31.]

Mr. Marten: Would not the Minister agree that haemophilia is in a class by itself from other disabilities, in that a bump which might easily occur in a tricycle, and not so easily in a four-wheeled car, can bring on internal haemorrhage? Since the number of haemophiliacs with tricycles is very small—I believe 61—may I ask the hon. Gentleman to look again at this limited and exceptional class of person?

Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir. I will certainly look at the matter. However, it is only fair that I should mention that my right hon. Friend received representations on this and other special categories of people prior to making his announcement on 15th February. I should also point out that, when my right hon. Friend has the necessary powers, and provided the finance is forthcoming in the National Health Service, he proposes to take a substantial step forward in the provision of vehicles.

Dr. Winstanley: If the Minister is unable to issue suitably adapted cars to haemophiliacs, will he consider making grants to these people so that they can make suitable adaptations to their own cars?

Mr. Snow: I should like to examine that suggestion. There are facilities for special grants to be made to certain categories, but I will look into the matter.

Elderly Persons

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to prevent the deaths of elderly persons remaining undiscovered for long periods; and what official statistics he has on the number of bodies of elderly people found more than a week after their death in their homes during each of the last five years.

Mr. Snow: Regular visiting of the elderly is the best safeguard, and in most areas this is arranged by voluntary bodies with the support of the local authority. My right hon. Friend is considering whether the statutory powers of local authorities to help the elderly should be extended for this and other purposes. No official statistics are available on my hon. Friend's last point.

Mr. Judd: Would not my hon. Friend agree that there is reason to believe that the numbers in this category are alarmingly high, that they are a blot on the civilised standards of a modern nation, and that they indicate that we are still not devoting a big enough slice of the national economic cake for the welfare of the elderly?

Mr. Snow: I do not know about the numbers being very considerable. There were two, for instance, in Portsmouth over the last four years which came, broadly speaking, within the category about which my hon. Friend talks. My right hon. Friend has no power, nor have local authorities, of entry to discover whether elderly people are in need of help, but we shall bear that point in mind.

Mrs. Braddock: Is my hon. Friend aware that Liverpool has given a very great lead in this respect; and that if it were possible for the Minister to refer to the tremendous amount of good work


our young people are doing in this connection, instead of giving all the publicity to anything bad they do, it would be very useful throughout the country?

Mr. Snow: I fully subscribe to what my hon. Friend has said. It will be a poor day when voluntary help in this and other connections is not given proper consideration. I should add, in this connection, that all voluntary committees should be very careful to inform local authority welfare departments of this sort of case.

European Doctors (Registration)

Mr. Worsley: asked the Minister of Health what plans he has for amending Part 3 of the Medical Act, 1956, to facilitate the registering of European doctors in this country in accordance with Article 57 of the Treaty of Rome.

Mr. K. Robinson: This would be considered as part of the wider legislation that would be needed if we entered the Common Market.

Mr. Worsley: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a real necessity to study these matters in advance of an application to join? Is he further aware that the failure of Government Departments apparently to understand the implications of joining the Treaty causes some doubt to be cast on the good intentions of the Government as a whole?

Mr. Robinson: Since the premise of the hon. Member's question cannot be substantiated, the conclusion falls to the ground. I assure him that great study has been made in my Department of all the implications for the service which would follow joining the Common Market. Certainly the General Medical Council and the medical profession would be consulted before the Government reached any decision on ways and means.

Mr. Edelman: Is it not the case that the Council of Europe has for a long time been considering the question of equivalence of degrees? In these circumstances, will my right hon. Friend communicate with the Council of Europe to see what progress has been made?

Mr. Robinson: I will consider my hon. Friend's question if that has not already been done.

European Economic Community (Reciprocal Arrangements)

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: asked the Minister of Health which of the Common Market countries provide reciprocal health and hospital services for citizens of the United Kingdom similar to those obtainable by their nationals in the United Kingdom; what steps he is taking to extend such reciprocal arrangements; and what would be the effect of United Kingdom accession to the Common Market on these arrangements.

Mr. K. Robinson: None, Sir, but some United Kingdom nationals who live in Common Market countries qualify for the health benefits available to nationals of the country concerned; it has not been possible to make more comprehensive arrangements with these countries; membership of the Community would extend the health benefits to some but not all visitors from this country.

Mr. Macmillan: Is the Minister taking any active steps to ensure that visitors to the Continent are protected in the same way or similarly to the way in which Continental visitors to this country are protected?

Mr. Robinson: I do not know if that supplementary question was limited to Common Market countries, but in those countries the health benefits are less comprehensive than those available here and they are dependent upon insurance qualifications. We have much more comprehensive arrangements for reciprocity with other European countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Yugoslavia.

Doctors (Prescriptions)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Health, in view of the fact that it is his policy to allow doctors freedom to prescribe what they believe to be in the best interests of individual patients, if he will give an assurance that he will not erode this right by limiting prescribing to a list of products approved by a central committee.

Mr. Snow: This is not my right hon. Friend's intention, but he hopes doctors will heed advice sent to them by such a committee.

Mr. Fisher: I am grateful for that reassurance, because all patients do not respond in exactly the same way to the same medicine. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a committee's simple mandatory recommendation, although no doubt perfectly all right for most people, would be undesirable if it proved the wrong drug for a minority of patients who perhaps are allergic to it?

Mr. Snow: The operation of this committee is to some extent, if not predominantly, concerned with differentiating between what I would describe loosely as generic drugs which may be combined one with the other and therefore reduce the flexibility available to the doctor for a particular treatment, and which incidentally are sometimes very expensive, and drugs which are unacceptable due, for instance, to an unacceptably lesser degree of efficacy or unacceptable because of greater toxicity than the alternative monograph preparations.

Dr. David Kerr: Would my hon. Friend accept it from me that nobody is trying to push doctors into prescribing according to a list supplied by a committee? Would he please take note that it is now possible for instructions to be given to chemists to dispense official preparations which are exactly analogous to prescription for proprietary preparations? If chemists were to do this, it could conceivably save the National Health Service a great deal of money.

Mr. Snow: I should like those words to be written above the door of every chemist in the land.

Mr. Braine: Will the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that it is no part of the Minister's function to interfere with the doctor's right to prescribe for his patient whatever drugs he thinks fit, irrespective of cost?

Mr. Snow: I should have thought that that observation needed some qualification, but there is no question of doctors being forbidden to prescribe the so-called category B preparations. I am sure that before prescribing them doctors will take into account the views of this very eminent professional body.

Dr. Summerskill: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many family doctors are far too busy to compare the

relative merits and prices of a host of drugs all of which claim to treat the same condition and that they would appreciate guidance in this matter?

Mr. Snow: I think that guidance is given, but the doctor always has the final sanction of not receiving salesmen.

Dr. Winstanley: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware, first, that many practitioners welcome advice on the value of individual drugs from central sources, and, secondly, that they would welcome any steps taken centrally to reduce the multiplicity of drugs which are virtually of an identical nature?

Mr. Snow: Yes. We have taken note of that.

Patients (Payments to Doctors and Chemists)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider seeking the introduction of payments by patients to their doctors for consultations and to their chemists for medicines, with subsequent reimbursement through the National Health Service, in inverse proportion to incomes, as is the practice in France and other European countries.

Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir.

Mr. Fisher: Would the Minister accept that this is a genuinely interrogative question, unlike some of mine, and is designed to air an idea to which I do not necessarily subscribe? Would he bear in mind that it might have the avantage of reminding people of how very expensive consultations in medicine are and might discourage the unnecessary use of them?

Mr. Robinson: I think that it would also have disadvantages, because the need to find the money initially would deter some patients from receiving medical attention and treatment, particularly the poorest patients, who may well have the greatest need for medical attention. Evidence from other countries does not suggest that payments by patients solve the problems of general practitioners.

Dr. Summerskill: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are signs that many right hon. and hon. Members opposite, led by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), would like to see the abolition


of State medicine and a return to private practice?

Mr. Robinson: I cannot believe that that is universally the view on the Conservative benches.

Mr. Braine: Is the Minister aware that the arrangements mentioned in my hon. Friend's Question work very well indeed in New Zealand and have worked very well under Labour Governments in New Zealand? Has his Department made a recent study of how the New Zealand system works?

Mr. Robinson: Yes. We know exactly what happens in New Zealand.

Mr. Molloy: I hope that my right hon. Friend will maintain his original Answer, because the content of this Question—HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Is my right hon. Friend aware that the content of this Question is a surreptitious attempt to assassinate the most humanitarian service ever produced by any country in the world and which is still anathema to the Conservative Party?

Mr. Robinson: To the extent that those allegations are correct, the attempt has failed.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Has the Minister studied the account of the Canadian experiment in this direction which was written up in a paper-back called "The American Health Scandal", which I lent him?

Mr. Robinson: Yes; I read with very great interest the book which the right hon. Gentleman lent me, and I thought it was a very fine tribute to the National Health Service.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: And to the Canadian one.

Public Health Medical Officers (Remuneration)

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Health what stage has now been reached in the negotiations concerning the remuneration of public health medical officers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Robinson: A general salary claim is being considered by the Management Side of the Whitley Council.

Mr. Braine: Is the Minister aware that public health medical officers consider

the attitude of the Management Side of the Whitley Council to be quite disgraceful, since there was a commitment before 20th July last? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a commitment to review the pay of these doctors independent of the review of other local authority officers?

Mr. Robinson: No, Sir; I do not accept that there is any evidence of a commitment as to the operative date of the increase claimed, but I have no doubt that the Management Side will wish to resume consideration of the claim in the light of the further guidance, which, as the House knows, the Government will make known before Easter on prices and incomes policy generally.

Ambulance Service

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Health what advice his Department took from local authorities on the subject of ambulance services before giving evidence to the Royal Commission on Local Government.

Mr. K. Robinson: None, Sir, but copies of the evidence were sent to the Local Authority Associations and the Greater London Council inviting their views.

Mr. Braine: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what criteria he used in coming to his conclusion that this important and generally well-run service should be transferred from democratically elected local authorities?

Mr. Robinson: My Department's evidence to the Royal Commission was based on its own accumulated knowledge and experience, and I think that it would have been inappropriate to consult the local authorities on the formulation of Departmental views.

Dr. David Kerr: Would my right hon. Friend accept that there are lots of deficiencies in the present locally run ambulance services, but that it is not very clear that they will be removed by passing them to another part of the National Health Service? Will he note that many of us feel that the only answer is totally to iron out the borders between the three parts of the Health Service? Would he give an assurance that there will be no transfer of the ambulance service at least


until the Royal Commission has reported?

Mr. Robinson: No. I have announced that I am considering the situation following the views which the local authority associations and the Royal Commission have expressed to me. I will announce a decision in due course.

Pregnancy Tests

Mr. Scott: asked the Minister of Health why it has been decided that pregnancy tests shall in future be available without restriction under the National Health Service.

Mr. K. Robinson: Until recently tests were carried out under the National Health Service in three special centres only, using a time-consuming biological method. As reliable and quicker immunological tests are now available, it has become possible for hospital laboratories generally to provide this service, at the request of a general practitioner.

Mr. Scott: Has it not always been possible for these tests to be carried out where there have been good clinics? Does not this decision mean that there will be a great increase in the demand for tests with no clinical justification at all?

Mr. Robinson: No. It has always been possible, but pathological laboratories in the Health Service are hard pressed. The new method makes it very much easier to do this work and does not consume so much of the technician's time. We think that the pathological service generally is perfectly well able to take this additional load.

Dr. David Kerr: Would my right hon. Friend inquire of hon. Members opposite why they are so anxious to give doctors unutterable freedom in prescribing drugs but are trying to restrict their opportunities in making pathological investigations?

Drugs

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health if, in addition to the clinical requirements drug manufacturers have to submit to the Dunlop Committee before approval, he will further require them to

submit costings to his Department before a new drug is prescribed for National Health Service patients.

Mr. K. Robinson: I propose to await the report of the Sainsbury Committee before considering whether any extension of the present arrangements for examination of costs and profits is desirable.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in commercial enterprises if a marketing company takes all the production of a single factory it does so after strict costings and drives a hard bargain? Would my right hon. Friend look into this matter when he gets the report with a view to doing the same thing, as the Health Service is often the prime consumer of drug factories' products?

Mr. Robinson: Certainly I will, but my hon. Friend knows that in the case of certain widely used products the voluntary price regulation scheme provides for direct negotiation between the firm and my Department and for an examination of the firm's costs and profits.

Mr. Braine: In view of the somewhat misleading nature of the Question, would the Minister confirm that the whole purpose of the voluntary price regulation scheme, which he himself renegotiated, is to determine whether the price is fair, reasonable and acceptable, making allowance for the investment in research? This surely is the present arrangement.

Mr. Robinson: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that it was not I who renegotiated the present scheme, but my predecessor. I agree that that is the purpose of the voluntary price regulation scheme, but I shall look at this and all other relevant matters when I have the report of the Sainsbury Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Morning Sittings

Mr. Hamling: asked the Lord President of the Council what representations have been made to him on present arrangements for morning sittings of the House; and whether he will make a statement.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Various representations and suggestions have been made by hon. and right hon. Members. I think there is a growing realisation that morning sittings serve a useful purpose, but it is too early to come to conclusions on this experiment.

Mr. Hamling: Would my right hon. Friend consider that a more useful purpose would be served, particularly in the view of the full-time Members, if morning sittings were real morning sittings and not second-class morning sittings?

Mr. Crossman: I shall certainly bear that in mind. We must see how they go. But the important thing to remember is something that I said in our debate on procedure, namely, that our procedure should be for the convenience of the whole-time Members, and to make it possible for part-time Members to attend.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Arising out of what the right hon. Gentlemen said about the growing realisation of the importance of these sittings, was he encouraged by the enthusiasm for morning sittings shown by his hon. Friends this morning, when the sole occupant of his back benches—as he may not know because he was not here—was one small P.P.S.?

Mr. Crossman: I think that I have had occasion before to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the utility of morning sittings is not measured solely by the number of those who attend.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Is it correct, Mr. Speaker, to describe the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) as a "small P.P.S."?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that it was a term of affection.

Mr. Rankin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not concerned with affection from the other side of the House, but with rectitude. I was the solitary person on this side of the House.

Mr. Hector Hughes: If the morning sittings are to be continued, will my right hon. Friend organise the business in such a way that they will be early enough not to compete with the morning sittings

of Committees? In other words, will he make the morning sittings earlier still?

Mr. Crossman: I shall certainly reflect on that suggestion. Of course, I bear in mind the need to consider the simultaneity of morning sittings and Committee sittings. That is one of the reasons for selecting one day rather than another for the sittings. Those are all matters to reflect on when we consider the form that they will finally take.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that morning sittings would have quite a lot more support if they were for the convenience of the House as a whole rather than the convenience of the Government, which they appear to be at the moment?

Mr. Crossman: If it were true that they were not for the convenience of the House as a whole, what we need is to learn how to improve the experiment and ensure that the permanent arrangement for morning sittings is satisfactory to the House as a whole.

Mr. Rankin: Do I take it from what my right hon. Friend said in his reply to my hon. Friend that he proposes to make morning sittings operate pari passu with afternoon sittings, so that a major debate, such as a debate on defence, can start at 10 o'clock in the morning and proceed to the ordinary termination of the House in the evening?

Mr. Crossman: If that was the deduction that my hon. Friend drew from my reply, it was false.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by taking a large number of Regulations and Orders on the Land Commission this morning he has already shown that he has departed from the principle that only unimportant business should be taken in the morning? While I do not dispute that this might be a good thing, and that steps should be taken to bring morning sittings more in line with business for the rest of the day, could he not make such a change without an announcement to that effect in the House?

Mr. Crossman: That is a fair point. I am increasingly aware that the attempt to draw a distinction between important and unimportant business is becoming


difficult because of the reasons given by my hon. Friend the below the Gangway, namely, that all matters are important to some people. I am reconsidering the definition I laid down in the procedure debate.

Mr. Hamling: asked the Lord President of the Council what steps will be taken to ensure that Members can meet constituents in the Central Lobby on mornings when the House is sitting.

Mr. Crossman: The arrangements for enabling Members to meet constituents in the Central Lobby on mornings when the House is sitting are exactly the same as those in force in the afternoons.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a couple of weeks ago some constituents seeking to lobby Members were unable to do so? Is that because of shortages of staff, and will he look into the matter?

Mr. Crossman: If the case is the one of which I am thinking, I think that it was not owing to shortage of staff but owing to a rule that when the House is not sitting green cards are not circulated. They are circulated during the morning sittings but not in the interval between morning and afternoon sittings. I think that the constituents came at 1.30 p.m. and got their green cards at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. Deedes: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind the very serious situation that will arise when parties wish to visit not merely the Central Lobby but other precincts? Will they be prevented from doing so except on Tuesdays and Thursdays? There will be real chaos.

Mr. Crossman: I am very much aware of the problems of parties visiting the House, particularly in the summer months when the flow becomes considerable. In the Services Committee we are now consulting the Serjeant at Arms to ensure convenience to Members and that at least Members' rights to take their people around the House of Commons as often as they like are not undermined.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the reason we supported Monday morning sittings was to make certain that we did not sit too late at night and early in the morn-

ing? Would he agree that the experiment has been an abject failure so far?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

Sir D. Glover: Will the Leader of the House look again at the question of the opening of the Galleries for morning sittings?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The supplementary question must be related to the question on the Order Paper.

"TORREY CANYON" (OIL POLLUTION)

Mr. Nott: Mr. Nott (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current operations to disperse oil from the tanker, "Torrey Canyon", which is aground off the Isles of Scilly.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy went down to Plymouth yesterday afternoon to co-ordinate measures to deal with the oil pollution from the "Torrey Canyon", which is owned by the American firm Union Oil Company and was under charter to BP. He has reported that the tanker is aground possibly for three-quarters of its length on rocks 15 miles due West of Land's End and 7 miles NE of St. Martin's Island in the Scillies. It carried approximately 118,000 tons of crude oil in 18 compartments. Three of these compartments are certainly holed and probably seven more. Oil has escaped in quantities and is still escaping.
The sea area covered by oil has now extended to over 100 square miles, of which 4 or 5 square miles is heavy oil concentration and the rest is thinning and variable film. The oil is drifting to the south and the area covered is constantly increasing.
A major effort is being mounted using H.M. ships and local fishing vesels, under naval co-ordination, to spray chemical dispersant on the oil in the sea. At the last report 5,500 gallons of dispersant had already been used, but this is only a start and it is expected that at least two weeks' concentrated effort will be


necessary. The Government have authorised the expenditure of up to £½ million over this period. We expect to have over twenty ships at work tomorrow.
Despite the very strenuous efforts which are being made to deal with this problem, it is obviously impossible to guarantee that none of the oil will reach the beaches in the Scilly Isles and the south west of England. But we are doing all we can to minimise this risk.
Meanwhile, discussions with the local authorities are being held and the Chancellor has authorised me to say that if the beaches are polluted the Government will consider sympathetically the question of financial help.

Mr. Nott: First of all, I would express the appreciation of the West Country of the efficient and prompt manner in which the Royal Navy took up this matter on Saturday morning, following requests from local authorities and others, and say that we welcome the fact that the Government are now treating the matter with the urgency that it deserves. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the question.

Mr. Nott: May I ask the Minister, first, whether he feels that there are or can be sufficient stocks of emulsifier to deal with the problem; secondly, whether he will now consult with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government with a view to setting up emergency teams and facilities which will tackle the continuing problem of oil pollution in future; and, thirdly, whether the Government now recognise the sense of frustration on the part of hoteliers, local authorities and hon. Members at their inability to make progress with the difficulties which have continued over some years arising from oil pollution? Also, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to appoint a Minister to co-ordinate the many Ministries involved?

Mr. Healey: First, I am sure that the Royal Navy will be grateful for the tribute which the hon. Member very rightly paid to its efforts. I am sure that he did not mean to imply that Her Majesty's Government had not acted very urgently over the problem, as they did.
On the particular questions that the hon. Gentleman asked, we now have some 20,000 gallons of dispersant in Falmouth from Government and British Petroleum sources, and other supplies are coming forward. We believe that we have all the dispersant that we shall be able to distribute.
With regard to the second question about permanent teams to deal with the general problem of oil pollution, the Government will, of course, consider this, but this is a question not for me alone. I am fully aware that in many respects international handling of the oil pollution problem is unsatisfactory at the present time. Unfortunately, this is a matter which even the British Government as a whole cannot deal with alone.

Dr. Dunwoody: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is great concern in the far South-West that much of the oil appears to have been deliberately pumped out of the vessel in order to attempt to refloat it from the reef? Could he assure the House that steps will be taken to ensure that this does not continue. As there are nearly 100,000 tons of oil still inside the wreck, could serious consideration be given to the possibility of setting fire to the wreck and destroying the oil on the reef?

Mr. Healey: On the first question, I must point out to my hon. Friend that if the ship breaks up on the reef all the cargo is liable to be dispersed. So it is quite natural that the owners should have considered the possibility of floating it off even if it meant releasing some of the oil.
On the question of firing the ship, we now have representatives of the company from New York in Plymouth, and they have visited the boat. We are not in a position to be able to set fire to the ship until they give their agreement that this can be done. The vessel is on the high seas at the present time. However, I must tell the House that many technical and practical problems arise in firing the ship. Even if we take this step, it may be some time before the danger is finally removed.

Mr. Pardoe: Might I associate myself on behalf of my constituents with the thanks expressed to the Government for the very prompt action which they have taken? I should like to thank the naval authorities, too, not only on this occasion


but for the previous occasions when they have been enormously co-operative.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to discuss with the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Housing and Local Government the suggestion that I made in a letter to them last July, that an insurance fund should be set up jointly between the local authorities in the coastal areas and the central Government to take care of this very eventuality?

Mr. Healey: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks will be echoed on both sides of the House.
With regard to the second part of his remarks, he will recognise that it is essentially not for me, but I will certainly ensure that his suggestion is looked at again by my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Bellenger: With regard to the latter part of my right hon. Friend's reply, surely this is or should be a matter of insurance on behalf of the shipowners and not of insurance of our local authorities or a country like ours that happens to be in the way of the large tankers coming up the Channel. Is there no means whereby the owners of the ship or the charterers could pay for the services which the British Government are rightly giving?

Mr. Healey: I am sure that my right hon. Friend's suggestion is the right way to deal with the matter, but, as I said earlier, unfortunately that involves international agreement on a very large scale, and the international situation in this respect is far from satisfactory at the moment. I should like to take this opportunity of saying that we felt it was right that, although we have no legal liability in a situation like this, we should do everything possible, whatever the cost, to prevent the oil from reaching the beaches, and that is what we are now doing.

Mr. Bessell: Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept the thanks of my constituents for the prompt way in which the Government, as well as the Royal Navy, acted in this matter? May I further ask him whether British Petroleum has any legal responsibility in view of the fact that the oil was jettisoned with the hope of refloating the ship?

Mr. Healey: I am afraid that I cannot answer the latter question without notice, but the Government are receiving every possible help from British Petroleum in dealing with this question.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Although I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that no reasonable cost must be spared in preventing this pollution of our beaches, or, for that matter, any beach on the Continent of Europe, may I ask whether the eventual cost of this enormous operation will fall on the British taxpayer, or will the company be liable?

Mr. Healey: I cannot answer that question without notice and, indeed, without inquiries which have yet to be completed. As I said, we felt that the important thing was to do everything possible as fast as possible to prevent the oil from reaching the beaches. The question of who pays is a question which we felt we could leave to a little later. I hope that the House agrees about that.

Mr. Murray: Has my right hon. Friend yet had any request for help to remove the ship from the reef? Are the Navy helping to do this at present?

Mr. Healey: This question is under consideration. There is a salvage team working on the ship at this moment trying to seal the holes in the bulkheads which have been breached. As I have said, I hope that it will be decided later this afternoon by the owners whether they wish to go on trying to refloat the ship or whether they would agree that steps should be taken to destroy it and to try to fire the oil aboard. But there are many difficult practical problems as well as legal problems, and I do not wish to go further on that matter

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Have either the French or the Spanish Navies offered help in this enormous task, bearing in mind that both their coastlines are potentially threatened? May I add a word of appreciation from my constituency for the action which has already been taken?

Mr. Healey: I am afraid that I have no information on approaches from those two Navies at present.

Mr. Loveys: Is the Minister aware that the financial and other help offered, welcome as it is in this instance, will


sound a little ironical to those local authorities which still have a heavy burden to bear in cleaning up their beaches from oil, with no Government assistance whatever? Will he give a more definite assurance about future financial support not only in respect of oil on the sea but also in cases in which oil has to be cleared from the beaches?

Mr. Healey: I do not think that that question arises either within my competence as Secretary of State for Defence or in any sense within the terms of the original Private Notice Question.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: While associating myself with other West Country Members who have thanked the Royal Navy, may I ask whether, as an alternative to firing the ship, any consideration has been given to the possibility of offloading the fuel tanks into tenders? From photographs in the Press it appears that ships can get alongside the wreck.

Mr. Healey: No, Sir. I am afraid that I am advised that it would be hazardous in the extreme to bring another ship close enough to unload the oil from the "Torrey Canyon". This is the firm opinion of naval authorities on the spot. Some of the photographs are misleading, because the heaviest concentration of oil is actually round the ship and the sea conditions do not appear from the photographs.

Sir F. Bennett: In view of the danger which continues in spite of all that the Ministry are doing, will the Minister give an assurance that someone will give a progress report to the House in the next few days?

Mr. Healey: I will consider that.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry but I must cut out some hon. Members who have constituency interests. It is very difficult for me to do so, but I must do so.

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

House, at its rising on Thursday, to adjourn till Tuesday 4th April.—[Mr. Crossman.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

House to meet on Thursday at Eleven o'clock; no Questions be taken after Twelve o'clock; and at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Mr. Crossman.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered, That, notwithstanding the Order [5th May] relating to Business of the House—

(1) Public Bills other than Government Bills shall have precedence over Government Business on Friday 2nd June instead of Friday 12th May, and Public Bills which now stand in the Order Book for Friday 12th May shall have precedence over any other Bill which may have been set down for Second Reading on Friday 2nd June: provided that the provisions of paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 5 (Precedence of government business) shall apply to the arrangement of bills on the Order Paper on that day.
(2) Private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence over Government Business on Friday 9th June instead of Friday 19th May, and the ballot for these Notices shall not be held on Wednesday 3rd May, but shall stand over until Wednesday 31st May.—[Mr. Crossman.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the first hon. Member to address the House on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, the House should know that there are 19 topics which hon. Members seek to raise on Second Reading of the Bill. On the first topic, 33 right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have already intimated that they wish to speak. This is unusual. Obviously, I must protect other hon. Members and move away from the first debate at some time during the long debate ahead of us—at some time at which I judge the House will think it reasonable to do so.
I have one other observation of detail—topics Nos. 4 and 8, in the names of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) and the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), are identical and will be taken together, and topic No. 17 has been withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — ADEN AND SOUTH ARABIA

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: This debate provides an opportunity to discuss the critical problem of Aden and South Arabia. The situation in Aden is getting more and more out of hand and is rapidly drifting into anarchy. The police and the British Army are doing their best to carry out a dangerous and distasteful job, and I am sure that all of us, in all parts of the House, are extremely grateful to them. But their task is made well-nigh impossible by the restrictions placed upon them by the Government here in London. As a result, our soldiers, their families and the citizens of Aden, both British and Arab, have been exposed to totally unnecessary risks and innocent lives have been needlessly lost.
In a grave emergency of this kind, we cannot afford always to allow our opponents to strike first. We must try to keep a move ahead. When we have good reason to believe that a man is plotting violence and murder, we must not hesitate to detain him. If we wait until we have cast-iron evidence, we usually have to wait until he kills.
In the recent defence debate, I drew attention to the case of Mohammed Bassendwa, who had boasted over the Egyptian Radio that he had sent the bomb which blew off the fingers of our Assistant High Commissioner in Aden, Mr. Thorne. This man returned secretly to Aden and was arrested by the authorities, but a few days later he was released on orders from London. On another occasion recently, the Federal Government told the British authorities of the whereabouts of four terrorists, but their instructions did not allow them to do anything about it. A few days later those four men were leading the riots in Aden. Then, of course, they were arrested, but meanwhile the damage had been done.
One thing I find hard to understand is that the Government have not had the courage to ban the leading terrorist organisation known as F.L.O.S.Y. and to make it illegal for anyone to have any contact with it. In a reply to a recent Question of mine, the Minister of State admitted that F.L.O.S.Y. was
… responsible … for organising and carrying out acts of violence and terrorism …


—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 361.]
I ask the Foreign Secretary to tell us why this nefarious organisation has not been banned a long time ago.
The Government have now gone to the length of inviting the terrorist leaders to come back to Aden. Commenting on al Asneg's press conference in Taiz, in which he threatened to intensify terroism, a conference was shown on television here, a Foreign Office spokesman said last Tuesday that Her Majesty's Government would
… welcome the return to Aden of all interested parties, in order to help in the constitutional processes during the next few months.
It appears that al Asneg, Mackawee and other terrorist leaders are included among those to whom the Foreign Secretary extends this cordial welcome. It would seem that, provided they do not instigate fresh acts of murder and violence during their visit, they will be free to flaunt themselves around the streets of Aden without any fear of arrest for their past crimes. They will, no doubt, be asked to sit at the conference table side by side with members of the British High Commission and of the Federal Government whom they have been plotting to murder.
How low have we sunk? The Government could hardly have devised a better way to boost the morale of the terrorists and break the spirit of law-abiding citizens. I ask for an assurance that if this man and any of his fellow murderers set foot in the Federation they will at once be arrested.
Last week, in view of the threats of intensified violence, I asked that the United Nations Mission should be cancelled or postponed. The Prime Minister replied that it would be wrong "to capitulate to the instigators of terrorism." But that, of course, is precisely what the Government are doing. If they were really prepared to stand up to the terrorists, the Prime Minister's tough words would make some sence. But, in present circumstances, the visit by this Mission, which is nothing but an exercise in anti-colonial and anti-British propaganda, is likely to make a bad situation even worse. If as a result of this foolhardy decision innocent people are killed, their blood will be on the

heads of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister.

Mr. Ben Whitaker: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the intelligent letter in today's Times from his colleague, Mr. William Yates, attributing the blame for the present tragedy to the policies of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)?

Mr. Sandys: It is not customary to be asked to comment upon newspaper reports, and I will not comment on the writer.
If the British authorities are not to be allowed to deal effectively with terrorism, then the responsibility for internal security should be transferred to the Federal Government, who are quite confident of their capacity to take on the job. In any case, it is essential that the Federal authorities should acquire as much experience as possible in this difficult sphere before independence. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us when it is proposed to transfer to the Federal Government full responsibility for law and order, including responsibility for deciding policy?
In another place, Lord Beswick made it clear that terrorism in Aden is not the action of a locally inspired nationalist movement for independence. In any case, independence is already conceded. In reply to a Question last week in this House, the Minister of State confirmed that these terrorist organisations
… have received large scale financial and material support from the United Arab Republic whose forces in Egyptian occupied Yemen openly assist in such matters as training and equipping of terrorists. Egyptian-controlled radios in Cairo, Sana'a and Taiz not only incite violence in Aden every day but have recently taken part in directing strikes and disturbances there."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 361.]
That is the official view of the British Government. Only a few days ago, Mr. Mackawee, leader of F.L.O.S.Y., confirmed in Cairo that Egypt is helping to build and train
… a liberation army for action in South Arabia as soon as the British leave.
A newspaper report indicates that this force is equipped with Russian-made tanks, armoured cars and artillery.
There can be no doubt about the purpose of all this. Nasser's objective is to break the nerve and destroy the resistance


of all who are opposed to Egyptian domination in South Arabia. His aim is to bring about a total collapse of law and order so that when the British leave it will be easy for a group of Nasserite stooges to seize power in the name of so-called Arab unity and progress. As in the Yemen, Egyptian troops or Egyptian-paid volunteers would then be rushed to Aden to bolster up the puppet régime and help it to establish its authority.
A proportion, but by no means the majority, of the people of Aden might welcome Nasser, but the bulk of the population in the Federation would put up a fierce resistance. In next to no time, South Arabia would be plunged into a bitter and bloody civil war, accompanied by the same horrors and miseries which have afflicted the people of the Yemen.
It was these anxieties which led the delegates from South Arabia at the conference in 1964 to couple their request for independence with a request for continued British protection against external attack. It was these same considerations which led the then British Government to give a pledge to South Arabia that she would receive independence not later than 1968 and that Britain would conclude a defence agreement for the continued protection of the Federation for a period thereafter.
The Foreign Secretary continues to deny that any promise was given to conclude a defence agreement. He argues that, under paragraph 38 of the report of the 1964 Conference, which has been quoted many times, the Government were committeed only to convene a conference. I do not believe that any reasonable and fair-minded person could possibly put such a limited interpretation upon this promise. But if there was any doubt about this, it was removed by my statement to this House on 7th July, 1964, as Colonial Secretary. From that statement, it is crystal clear that the British Government gave a firm and unequivocal pledge both to grant independence and also to continue to give protection for a period thereafter.
Even if we were to accept the Government's torturous and unconvincing argument, the fact remains that they have never made any attempt to convene any conference for the purposes set out in

paragraph 38 of the White Paper. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not need convincing that no conference was ever called to fix a date for independence and conclude a defence agreement.
Ministers have tried to confuse the issue by talking about the preparatory meeting which they called in August 1965 to draw up the agenda for a constitutional conference. Owing to the obstructive tactics of two of the delegations, one led by Mackawee and the other by al Asnag, it proved impossible to fix any agenda and the proposal to hold a conference was abandoned.
The Government now claim that, having tried and failed to convene this conference, they have fully discharged the pledge given in the White Paper of 1964. But they must not be allowed to get away with that.
Such is the disingenuousness of the right hon. Gentleman that he has concealed—and I must use that word—the fact that the conference which the Government tried unsuccesssfully to convene in 1965 was not for the purpose of concluding a defence agreement, as promised in 1964. It was for a totally different purpose. It was to be concerned exclusively with the future constitution of the Federation. In a public statement, the text of which is in the Library, the then Colonial Secretary emphasised that the problem of defence and the future of the British base were not constitutional issues. They were, therefore, not matters for the conference.
It will thus be seen that, even if we accept their own absurdly narrow and restrictive interpretation of their obligation, the Government have failed completely to carry out the undertaking given to South Arabia in 1964. They have not even tried to convene the conference which was promised. This is a shameful story of deceit and bad faith. The British Government have double-crossed the Government of the Federation; they have misled the House of Commons; and they have blackened the name of Britain throughout the Middle East—

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): You should know. You are the greatest authority of the lot.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sandys: You have been called to order. I hope that you will keep quiet.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If any right hon. or hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, there is a Parliamentary way of doing it.

Mr. Sandys: Attention has been focused on the pledge given at the 1964 conference, but it should not be forgotten that, quite apart from that, we have a firm obligation under the Treaty of 1959 to defend the Federation, and this provides that it cannot be amended except by mutual consent. The present Government have never questioned the validity of the 1959 Treaty, but they argue that it will become null and void automatically on independence.
The Federal Government, who have obtained the best possible legal advice, dispute that interpretation strongly. A week ago, before returning to Aden, the Federal Ministers made an unequivocal statement of their position to the Foreign Secretary, and they did not mince their words. They said that they regarded the British Government's repudiation of the pledge given in 1964 as a total breach of faith. They made it clear that, if the British Government insisted that independence involved the abrogation of the existing Treaty of 1959 and the withdrawal of British military protection, the Federal Government were not, in those circumstances, prepared to agree to independence. They explained that although they greatly desire it, it would be a cruel farce to receive independence without the means of defending it against external attack. They emphasised that the people of South Arabia have no wish merely to substitute Egyptian for British rule.
They left London without agreement being reached on the date of independence or on defence? That is no doubt why the Minister of State was sent off to Aden to continue the argument. I assume that the Foreign Secretary will be telling us what, if anything, was decided there.
I have dealt at some length with the pledges which have been given, because there has been so much argument about them and because Britain's honour is involved. But even had there been no pledge, even if no undertaking had been given, surely we could not just walk out

and hand South Arabia to Nasser on a plate.
The other day, the Foreign Secretary refused to admit that Britain's premature withdrawal would create a dangerous vacuum. He should be ashamed to deny what is so obviously true. The whole world has warned him about it. The Government of the United States and those of many other countries have told him repeatedly of their anxiety. The Foreign Secretary should listen to the wise words of his own Minister of State, Lord Chalfont, who said in another place:
If there is one way not to solve a problem it is by running away from it.
There are several courses of action open to the Government. The easiest and the best is to honour Britain's word and give South Arabia independence in 1968 coupled with a defence agreement, as was promised. That would not involve the retention of a large garrison. All that is necessary is a sufficient British presence to convince Nasser that we mean business. What I have in mind is a small element of the R.A.F. at Khormaksar, one battalion of ground troops and arrangements for rapid reinforcement. Nor should it be an open-ended commitment. The agreement could be subject to termination when the Egyptian forces withdraw from the Arabian peninsula. I submit to the House that that is clearly the right policy. But up till now the Government have seemed determined not to adopt it.
In theory, it would be possible to postpone independence till the external threat is removed, but that undoubtedly would increase political tension and aggravate the security problem.
It seems that the Government may try to pass the buck to the United Nations by asking them to take over responsibility for the defence of South Arabia, or at any rate to assist in that task. If so, I submit that that is a very silly idea. It is more than doubtful whether the United Nations would take on that thankless job. If they did, they would probably expect Britain to provide the bulk of the military forces required and to pay a large part of the bill. Thus we would continue to bear most of the burden. At the same time, we would lose the right to decide how our troops should be used.
If an Egyptian-sponsored coup were to be carried out in Aden, a United Nations force would feel probably that it had no option but to co-operate with the puppet régime. On the other hand, when the Federal army came in to push the Egyptians out, the U.N. force would quite likely try to keep the two sides apart. Thus, instead of helping to defend the freedom of the Federation, the only result of introducing a United Nations force might be to make it more difficult for the people of South Arabia to defend themselves.
Another suggestion is that, after our withdrawal, we should keep a special task force ready to be flown in at short notice, if trouble arose. First of all, we can forget the "if". There is going to be trouble as soon as we go. And where would we keep this force? There would be no room for it at Bahrain. It would be unwise to station it on this side of the Arab air barrier. It would therefore have to be kept in Singapore. Because of the greater distance from home, the cost of maintenance would be even heavier than in Aden, apart from the fact that the cost of a single limited rescue operation would much more than wipe out the whole of any saving which the Government are hoping to secure by scuttling from South Arabia.
The Government are trying to save money at the expense of honour. If they adopt any solution of this kind, they will find that they have lost money as well as honour.
Although I hesitate to mention it, there is, naturally, one other course of action which is open to the Government. It is to stick to their present disastrous policy. They can run away from their responsibilities, and tear up the Treaty of 1959, and repudiate the pledge of 1964, and thrust independence upon the Federation, while leaving it totally defenceless against Egyptian attack. That is the road to chaos and war. It is the path of folly and dishonour. I still cannot believe that, when it comes to the point, even this irresponsible and perfidious Government can bring itself to do anything quite so shameful.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I mention one correction? I announced that topic No. 17 had been withdrawn. Topic No.

17, in the name of the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle), still stands. It is Topic No. 16, in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), which has been withdrawn.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: There is one matter on which all of us taking part in the debate can agree. All of us greatly deplore the acts of violence which are being committed in South Arabia, and the peril which it therefore involves for our own soldiers. All of us will join in hoping that whatever may be the outcome, the violence may be abated. We all agree about that. Indeed, it is one of the strongest claims, that some of us would make from this side of the House, that we have a better course for saving our troops from peril than that which was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys).
The right hon. Gentleman used extremely strong language. He talked about blackening the reputation of this country. He talked about honour. He said, "How low have we sunk?" He must not therefore complain—I do not suppose that he will—if he is answered in equally strong language, and if we say to him, quite clearly, that we think that no person in the whole wide world bears greater guilt for the blood which is now being shed in Aden than himself. That is the proposition which I will seek to sustain with facts from his own record.
If, in fact, it were true that what the right hon. Gentleman said is correct, that the Government are guilty of betrayal, treachery, and dishonour, it is curious that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to persuade his own Front Bench of that proposition. If it were true that his own Front Bench agreed with him on this proposition, surely these are matters for a Motion of censure against the Government. These are not matters to be left to a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, important though debates on the Bill are.
The right hon. Gentleman has had great experience in the House. I have never before heard it contented that when the Opposition believe the Government to be guilty of betrayal, deceit, and breach of their pledges on this scale it


should be left to a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill for the matter to be pressed. Therefore, I drew the conclusion, which I think every Member in the House will draw, that the reason the Opposition Front Bench have not chosen to put down a Motion of censure on this matter is because they do not agree with the terms in which the right hon. Gentleman stated his case.
That is the convention of the House. If they thought that the Government had been guilty of betrayal, that is the course they should have taken. They should not have left it to be done by the right hon. Gentleman, however distinguished he may be, in a Consolidated Fund Bill debate. They may say, "We have other matters to debate", but what other matters can be more important than the question of the honour of the country? If the Opposition agree with the right hon. Gentleman, I would have thought that this was a matter to be dealt with by a Motion of censure and a vote. But that has not been the proposition. The right hon. Gentleman has, so far, not been able to persuade his own Front Bench on this matter. They have left it to him, or, in their usual courageous fashion, they said, "Let him go into battle first and see how he gets on".
Let us see how the right hon. Gentleman does get on. He is obsessed, like so many of his hon. Friends, by President Nasser. They cannot get Nasser out of their minds. They are obsessed with their guilty consciences about Suez—and, indeed, Suez is very relative to this debate. The origin of the modern nationalist movement in Aden derives from Suez. Prior to Suez, the policy of the British Government, declared in Aden by the Conservative Party at that time, was that as far as they could foresee, not merely for years, but for decades and centuries ahead, Britain would retain her position in Aden without any change. That was the position stated by the British Government in May, 1956, prior to Suez. That was said to the Aden Legislature.

Viscount Lambton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Defence also said that in the foreseeable future we would be in Aden?

Mr. Foot: What I am seeking to prove, and what I am entitled to prove,

is that the origin of the nationalist upsurge in Aden derives from Suez. That is why hon. Gentlemen opposite feel so strongly about it. That is the origin of the modern upsurge of the nationalist movement in Aden. Hon. Gentlemen opposite need not take it from me. They can take it from a great authority on South Arabia, Mr. David Holden, the distinguished correspondent of the Sunday Times, who has written what is perhaps the most authoritative book on this subject.
Mr. Holden wrote:
Aden Colony crossed a political watershed during the months of the Suez crisis, from the firmly proclaimed imperial restrictions of Lord Lloyd in May"—
he was the person who indicated that we were going to stay in Aden for ever—
to a dawning realisation in December that the old bonds could be broken after all. In those six months Arab nationalism found its feet in the Colony.
These are the facts of the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman has tried to pass himself off as a great authority on Arab affairs, and we were supposed to take great account of his opinion. He has been wrong about Aden and Southern Arabia almost every time he has tried to give advice to the House. The right hon. Gentleman has been wrong in almost all the advice he has tendered to the House over the past 10 or 12 years about Southern Arabian affairs—and why? Principally because he and his hon. Friends have been so concerned to secure their revenge on President Nasser that they have never been able to look at the problem accurately. They have always said to themselves, and tried to say to us, that the whole nationalist movement in Arab lands has been provoked by President Nasser.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: Is it wrong to regard President Nasser as an enemy of this country when he is having British Service men and their families and Arab civilians murdered in the streets of Aden, a Colony for which we are still responsible?

Mr. Foot: I shall come to deal with the immediate situation, as anyone engaging in this debate should.
What I am arguing is that the outlook of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, in particular, that of the right hon. Member


for Streatham, about Arab affairs has been totally distorted because of their own aggression against Egypt in 1956. It is because they failed so miserably and squalidly in that expedition that they have failed ever since to propose measures for seeking any accommodation with President Nasser.
It is also the fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite have had their view distorted on what Arab nationalism intended to achieve in the Yemen, in Aden, and indeed throughout the whole of the Middle East, and therefore they become almost maniacal when they talk on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman was doing it. One could hear the venom in his voice, not merely because hon. Gentlemen opposite claim that British soldiers are being murdered under the directions of President Nasser, but because of their desire to carry through the expedition which they failed to carry through in 1956.
Those are the facts known by all the authorities on Arabian and Middle Eastern affairs. Everyone knows what a disaster it was for the reputation of this country that that expedition was undertaken, and everybody knows that it greatly fortified the strength of President Nasser's position. Indeed, if hon. Gentlemen opposite claim that President Nasser is now in a position to be able to give orders for the murder of British troops in Aden, they are largely responsible for it, because nobody in the whole wide world has done more to fortify and strengthen President Nasser's position in the Middle East than the Conservative Party. So it is in this sense that I say some of the blood rests on the right hon. Gentleman's hands.

Sir John Eden: While the hon. Gentleman is ranting in this House, and acting as an apologist for President Nasser, he is actively aiding and abetting the terrorist campaign which is resulting in the murder of our troops.

Mr. Foot: If anybody on the benches opposite wishes to think that I am an apologist for President Nasser, he is entitled to his opinion, but I am not really interested in arguing about it with him. I am trying to see how we can save our troops in Aden from being killed, and I will be able to show in a few moments that there are a large number of people,

whom not even the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) could accuse of being apologists for Nasser, who hold the same views as I do, and as Her Majesty's Government do.
What we have to take into account is that the advice which has been given by hon. Gentlemen opposite over the past 12 years about affairs in the Middle East has been completely distorted by their feelings about President Nasser, and, therefore, they have never been able to look at the objective facts and decide on a reasonable policy. The right hon. Member for Streatham smiles. It was he who forced through the merger between the Federation and Aden against the will of the great mass of the people in Aden. He held a conference in London, and pretty well the only elected representatives from Arabia walked out of it. The only people who were elected representatives would not agree with his proposition.

Mr. Sandys: Is there any important section of opinion in Aden which would like to separate Aden from the Federation?

Mr. Foot: A large number of people would. The right hon. Gentleman is in no position to talk about what he thinks is the view of those who speak for people in Aden. At the time of his conference he was warned that if he proceeded with the policies he was pursuing he would play into the hands of the most extremist forces in Aden.
The Conservative Party has done this time without number throughout the history of our country. In Ireland, in Nyasaland, in Africa, and now in Aden hon. Gentlemen opposite have refused to make concessions to the moderates, and they have therefore found the extremists in control. They have converted those who were pressing for a reasonable settlement in Aden into extremists, into not merely apologists for President Nasser, but maybe agents acting for him.
The right hon. Gentleman is the greatest recruiting agent that President Nasser has ever had. His policies have ensured that more and more people have gone to President Nasser and said, "I will do your terrorist work for you". The right hon. Gentleman is a great asset. I do not accuse him of being paid by Nasser, but I think that he would be well


worth the money. He has done an even greater service for President Nasser than Lord Avon. The right hon. Gentleman is in that same heavyweight class of those who have assisted President Nasser in his ambitions. He has done it because he has refused to recognise the strength and power of Arab nationalism, and this has been the fundamental weakness of all the advice which hon. Gentlemen opposite have given to the House and to the country throughout the whole of these proceedings.
Now let us look at the right hon. Gentleman's solutions and see what he would do. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West said a few moments ago that anybody who spoke in the sense that I was doing must be an apologist for President Nasser. There are many people in the country, not merely those who support the Government intermittently, like myself, who support the view which the Government take on this matter. A couple of week ago Mr. Frank Giles, the assistant editor of the Sunday Times, wrote an article about the Aden crisis, in which he said:
To turn the clock back now, to stay on in Aden after the appointed date for withdrawal, on the grounds of ensuring law and order, to enter into an open-ended commitment to the Federal Government which would leave Britain politically and militarily enmeshed, perhaps for years, in Middle Eastern affairs, would be an act of incalculable madness.
That is what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing. That is his solution, and he assures us, as if he has always been right in these matters, that if only we carry out his advice and decide to stay there and give an open-ended commitment, which we have never given, everything will be all right. Why should we take the right hon. Gentleman's advice? We have been following his advice for the last 10 years, and look at the mess now. The Foreign Secretary has to clear up the mess left by the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman is the chief architect of the chaotic situation in Aden today. He and his hon. Friends arranged it. This is what they planned. They were the people who decided that the way to deal with this most delicate situation was to say to the people in Aden, "You have to go in with a régime in which the sheikhs and the rest have the supreme

power". They thought that that was wisdom. They said that it would bring peace, that it would decide things, that it would ensure that we would have a safe, steady future. Unfortunately, their advice was accepted, but it did not work out that way. There were many people who at that time made an alternative prophecy and said, "If you try to force the nationalist forces in Aden into this shotgun marriage with the Federal sheikhs and the rest you are breeding appalling trouble for the future". This is what has happened.
Who has been right—hon. Gentlemen opposite who said that they knew about Arabian affairs, or those who advised that we should pay much more recognition to the power and strength of Arab nationalism, which is partly directed from Cairo, nobody denies that, but not entirely? Anybody who thinks that the whole of the strength of Arab nationalism comes from Cairo is making a great mistake. Indeed, everyone who says it is of further assistance to Nasser. This is what he wants people to say. This is what he wants the Middle East to believe, that he is the only champion of Arab nationalism, and the Conservative Party, we are not sure whether unanimously, agrees with him.
The fact of the matter is that what has been happening in Southern Arabia, in the Yemen, and elsewhere, is a rising of Arab nationalism. We have to come to terms with it, just as we have had to in Africa, in Ireland, and in other parts of the world, and as always the advice of the Conservative Party in these matters is to resort again to repression. The right hon. Gentleman began his speech, as if it was something original, by saying that the way to solve this problem was to lock up all the terrorists and the people engaged in these plots.
That is what we did in Nyasaland. The person who was locked up by the right hon. Gentleman and his Government is now the Prime Minister of Nyasaland. That is what we did in Cyprus.

Mr. Anthony Royle: Is that not what the Labour Government did in Palestine?

Mr. Foot: Yes—and it was quite wrong. Many of us opposed it at the time. That is not a very telling attack on me.
Eventually, in Palestine—and this probably preserved the world from an explosion there—we needed the good offices of the United Nations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite jeer. If they do not believe that the existence of United Nations forces helped to improve the position in the Middle East I ask them whether they are in favour of a withdrawal of all United Nations investigators and observers from the frontier between Syria and Israel.
Would a single hon. Member opposite propose that? Do not hon. Members opposite recognise that, in spite of their jeers and sneers, in many cases the intervention of United Nations forces has helped to preserve the peace? That was the case in Cyprus. I am asking whether we can learn from past events. Even after Suez we eventually used United Nations mediation, or United Nations observers, which enabled the horror of a most intricate and difficult situation at least to be mitigated.
The right hon. Gentleman's advice to the Government is that they should have nothing to do with the United Nations Mission in Aden. In my opinion, it is a pity that that mission was not sent out there much earlier. The mission might then have arrived in circumstances in which it would have been able to prevent some of the horrors which have since occurred. Nobody knows. But the right hon. Gentleman's recommendation that we should have nothing to do with United Nations mediation in Aden is a recommendation of despair.
The right hon. Gentleman has proposed that we should persist with the same policies which have meant the murder of many British soldiers and a large number of Arabs in Aden. He is recommending that we should keep out of Aden and the surrounding area the one force which could possibly prevent disasters from continuing. Since the right hon. Gentleman's advice has been so disastrous in the past, I do not think that there is much likelihood that the Government will adopt his advice today. But it will be interesting to see whether or not the Opposition Front Bench agree with the right hon. Gentleman, or whether they have different proposals to make. It will be interesting to see whether they have learnt anything from the past 12 years. When the right hon. Member

for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) speaks perhaps he will explain why, if he thinks that the Government are acting dishonourably, he has not thought fit to put down a Motion of censure.
In my opinion, if the Government were to retreat from their present policy they would merely invite large-scale terrorism, and increasing terrorism over many years; they would ensure that we could never reach a proper settlement in Arabia. They would become involved in the contest between Saudi Arabia and the Egyptians, with Britain ranged on one side. That quarrel could be a long one, during which time the good name of this country could be dragged through some very murky places.
The Government are right to stand back from that situation and to say that it is impossible for Britain to be successful by herself, and that the sooner we escape from the situation the better. They should show that Britain is eager to do everything in her power to assist the United Nations, which is the one force that can ensure that civilised standards of peace return to the whole area.

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: On a point of order. As there is no Motion before the House, may we be told when the Foreign Secretary will tell us the result of the Minister of State's visit to the Middle East?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. There is a Motion before the House.

4.35 p.m.

Viscount Lambton: I think that I speak for hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that we have great admiration for the oratorical ability of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot); yet I can hardly remember an occasion when he has failed so dismally as in the ranting speech he has just made. He is the best destructive critic in the House and perhaps the least constructive. He believes in destroying his own party and in destroying past premises, but offers very little in return.
The hon. Member has said that hon. Members on this side of the House are obsessed by Suez. It has always seemed


to me that since Suez hon. Members opposite have been upset by it. I cannot help thinking that the Foreign Secretary has a kind of inferiority complex for what he believes was our wrong policy, and that in his attempts to get some sort of settlement with Egypt at present he is exercising his judgment entirely from the point of view of a desire to make up for what he considers to be a great error in the past.
One of the great curiosities of the Middle East is the fact that during the last few years we have owed the retention of British interests not so much to what we have done as to what President Nasser has done. About 12 years ago a memorandum was drawn up by the Foreign Office which conveyed the belief that it was unlikely that Britain would be able to retain her oil interests for a long time. Yet at present we still have an extraordinary influence and an extraordinarily strong position. The simple explanation lies in the machinations of President Nasser.
Two years ago, at the Arab conference called in Algeria, President Bourguiba expressed the view that in practically every country in the Arab world the leadership at one time or the other had been disturbed, threatened or upset by President Nasser. Entirely because of this, countries in that area have looked to British influence and, on occasion, British arms to stabilise them and to safeguard them from the upsetting and disturbing influence of President Nasser.
If we consider his positive actions we can see that what has insistently disturbed him and worried him, and what has been the basis of his policies, is the fact that Egypt is not rich and that many Arab countries are overwhelmingly so. This has seemed to him unjust, and he has tried to build up an Arab empire. To begin with, we saw the emergence of the United Arab Republic, having a relationship with Syria. That fell down. We then saw a relationship with the Yemen. How hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, now continually hawking their consciences about Vietnam, can sit silent and approving when they see what President Nasser's policy in the Yemen has been, is totally inexplicable to me.
Within the last two weeks I have been in the Yemen. I have seen how women and children in mud huts have been bombed and killed, but there has not been a single word of protest from hon. Members opposite. Four years ago some of those Egyptians went into the Yemen. They were welcomed by precisely the same type of minority as would welcome them in Aden now. But what has happened to those who welcombed them in the Yemen? All except one—Salal—have fled to Aden, are in opposition, or are in prison in Cairo. That is what will happen to those who welcome him in Aden, if they get their way.
Surely the whole point is that one should not allow aggrandisement at the expense of small nations if one wishes to preserve the peace. Surely, if the Middle East is to become stable, force and violence cannot be shown to pay. What we are doing now by retreating from Aden before the threat of violence is to illustrate that force does pay. If we give way in Aden now, we will also have to give way in the Yemen and will also make way in the Trucial Coast and make it possible for Nasser to get in there. There is not enough in Aden or the Yemen to keep him satisfied. What he is after is the gold of the area—the oil of the area.
Therefore, his aggrandisement is still going on. It goes on to the Yemen, it goes on in Aden, it will go on to the Trucial Coast and Bahrain and will attempt to swamp Saudi Arabia itself. We are as inevitably fixed on a course of war and aggression in the Middle East led by Nasser as we were upon such a course in Europe led by Hitler. Precisely the same motives can be traced to each leader. Precisely the same trends of history can be discovered. Inevitably, once again, everyone is making excuses on the other side of the House and putting forward the best point of view for Nasser and not looking honestly at the case, which is simply that there is aggression which will be shown to have paid if we withdraw from Aden at present.
Of course, the situation is fraught with difficulties, and one has the greatest sympathy for the Foreign Secretary. There is no easy solution. Even once Nasser is out of Aden, the Aden Federation will


be a difficult child. It is full of anomalies; there are no natural democratic leaders in the State. But, surely, at least the State should be given a chance of developing internally and not be dominated externally. That is why I argue that it is necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to change our policy and honour the commitments which we have made in Aden.

4.42 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): In the light of the tone which the opening speeches have taken, perhaps it would be convenient if I were to say something now about South Arabia and our policy there and the situation there as I see it, in the hope that the debate from now on might be addressed to them.
It is only too easy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, for hon. Gentlemen opposite to let off their bitterness, their guilt complex, in emotive terms about President Nasser, but it does not help in the situation in South Arabia as it now is and in which the British and Arabian people are there and in the problems with which we have to deal.
I must make a brief comment on what the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) said at the beginning, which was not worth more than the briefest of comments. To be charged by him with being disingenuous was like being an acolyte commended by the high priest. I heard everything else he said—phrases like "shameful", "double-crossing", "breaking faith", "ashamed". They all trotted off his lips as though he were a man who has used them all his life and lived up to every single one. There is nothing else I have to say about what he said.
We are all concerned—the rest of us—with the situation in South Arabia, because of the deplorable incidents, the terrorist outrages, of which details were given in answer to a Question early today, but also because the whole constitutional future of the Federal State depends upon it.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has just visited Aden and the United Nations Mission is due to arrive in London later tonight. We are clearly at a very delicate stage, which is why

I deplore some of the things which have just been said. The House will understand that this is not, therefore, an easy moment for me to give the House all the information which it might wish to have. Before answering on some of the specific points put to me, I should like to outline the situation in South Arabia as I see it at this time.
Although, understandably enough, it is the terrorism which hits the headlines, that is by no means the whole of the story of what is happening in South Arabia. We have been encouraging the Federal Government to prepare for independence by overhauling their constitutional structure. The aim is to modernise that State and to provide for normal democratic processes.
The Federal Government have had committees at work since Christmas on this subject and have sent proposals to us during the last few days. It will be discussing these proposals also with the United Nations Mission to South Arabia. We are now considering the proposals and after consultations with the U.N. Mission, we hope to reach agreement with the Federal Government and to present a White Paper to Parliament.
The re-equipment and expansion of the Federal forces is proceeding with the aid of the funds and also the training facilities which we have provided. Federal forces are already responsible for internal security in the Federation outside Aden and, as the training of their units is completed, they will be able to take over internal security duties in Aden as well.
Here perhaps I may turn to the right hon. Member for Streatham, who has given us once again his views on the undertaking, as he sees it, by the Government of which he was a member, to conclude a defence agreement with South Arabia on its independence—

Mr. Sandys: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of responsibility for internal security, perhaps he would say whether it is the Government's intention at an early date to give full responsibility for internal security in Aden to the Federal authorities, or merely internal security duties, which is quite a different thing.

Mr. Brown: May I make my own speech in my own way, as the right hon.


Gentleman did and reach the points in the order in which I think it is better to reach them?
I am now dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's repeated view of what he regards as his undertaking, or the undertaking of the Government of which he said he was a member, to conclude a defence agreement with South Arabia on independence. We went over this ground in the defence debate on 28th February. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman perhaps now accepts, in the light of his speech this afternoon, that paragraph 38 of the 1964 Conference Report means what it says, namely, that the British Government's undertaking was to convene a conference at which the issues of independence and the security of the independent State would be discussed—[Interruption.] The Conference Report says—

Mr. Sandys: No, it does not: read the words.

Mr. Brown: I am sorry. I read them last time. If I may remind the House, I gave the right hon. Gentleman a White Paper which he did not carry in his hand. He did not contest it then. If he wants to contest it now, I suggest that he reads it—

Lord Balniel: May I assist both right hon. Gentlemen by reading the paragraph? It reads:
The delegates asked that Britain should agree to independence for the Federation, while continuing thereafter to assist in its defence. They requested that as soon as practicable the British Government should convene a conference for the purposes of fixing a date for independence not later than 1968, and of concluding a Defence Agreement under which Britain would retain her military base in Aden for the defence of the Federation and the fulfilment of her world-wide responsibilities. The Secretary of State announced the agreement of the British Government to this request.

Mr. Brown: That is exactly what I read last time. [Interruption.] It is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman denied and it is, of course, exactly the only undertaking into which the Government entered. It was that they would convene a conference for the purposes of discussing those things; and when we came to office my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Colonies made determined and repeated attempts

to reach agreement with the Federal and Aden Ministers on the agenda for such a conference. But we did not succeed. The conference was never convened.

Sir J. Eden: Sir J. Eden rose—

Mr. Brown: Now the right hon. Member for Streatham refers not so much to that—and that is why he never carries the White Paper with him—but to what he said in this House on 7th July, 1964. This is what he repeated in the letter which he wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 1st March.
I wish to make clear tonight what I said to him in the letter which I sent to the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of my right hon. Friend. In my view, his letter confirms my belief that there was considerable confusion at the time about the outcome of the Constitutional Conference over which he presided in June, 1964. The fact is that not for the first time—and, in view of what he has since said, not for the last time—could what the right hon. Gentleman say bear a very different interpretation from the paragraph in the White Paper to which he gave his name.
The point is that the White Paper recorded the agreement reached with the South Arabian delegates; and it was signed by them and by the British delegates. The obligations which Her Majesty's Government inherited were the obligations in the White Paper. We did not inherit any of the subsequent gloss which the right hon. Member for Streatham may have chosen to put on the White Paper or on the agreement.

Mr. Sandys: I have already made it clear that I could not in any way accept the very limited and restrictive interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman puts on the White Paper. What I have tried to say this afternoon is that even if we did accept it the Government have not convened or tried to convene a conference of any kind for the purposes set out in the White Paper—that is, to fix the date of independence and conclude a defence agreement.
The conference to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was for quite a different purpose and it is perfectly clear, from the statement made by the then Colonial Secretary, that defence was right outside the terms of reference of the conference


which he was trying to convene. What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say about that?

Mr. Brown: This is yet another gloss on what was done. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is no good hon. Gentlemen opposite expressing dissent. It is absolutely true. What, in fact, was agreed in the White Paper is something distinct from what the right hon. Member for Streatham afterwards tried to suggest was agreed. We attempted to carry it out and there is, therefore, no basis for suggesting that we have gone back on the agreement which he made. On the other hand, his own colleagues went only as far as the White Paper. It is only the right hon. Member for Streatham who has since put these other glosses on it.
The right hon. Gentleman has also said on several occasions that our obligation to defend South Arabia does not end with independence. However, in the defence debate the right hon. Gentleman went so far as to say:
There is no mention of independence in the treaty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 313.]
I will read to the House the third paragraph of the preamble to the 1959 Treaty—which, of course, was not changed in this respect by either of the subsequent Amendments; by either the Amendment of 1963 or that of 1965. The operative paragraph—the right hon. Member for Streatham clearly forgot it—refers twice to independence and states:
Considering that the Federation desires to develop ultimately into an economically and politically independent State in friendly relations with the United Kingdom and that the United Kingdom undertakes to assist the Federation to become ultimately an independent state …
It is clear from this that the whole Treaty was based on the intention that the Federation would become independent; and it dealt with arrangements to help the Federation towards that goal. The Treaty related only to the period until independence. By its very nature, therefore, it must terminate upon independence. The Treaty, as it was written, is inconsistent with relations between independent States. Therefore, all the references to British defence arrangements with South Arabia—and I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this—as, for example, in Section 1 of the

Annexe, are clearly limited to the interim period before independence.
On the assumption—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is a big assumption—that the former Government meant what was set out in the Treaty, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite must accept, as this Government do, that the consistent aim of our policy has been, and is, to achieve a true independence with an independent South Arabia standing on its own feet. Only on that basis—of a true independence with an independent South Arabia standing on its own feet—could acceptance by neighbouring countries and by the United Nations be assured.
Many people may have hoped that President Nasser might have been persuaded to play a constructive part. I deprecate many of the things that have been said this afternoon on the ground that while they may let off internal steam they may not help the situation. Thus, how do I see the situation and how do I feel about it? Since I met Field Marshall Amer in Moscow, I have exchanged informal and personal messages with President Nasser. This is no secret. Nor is it a secret that one of the main topics of the correspondence has been South Arabia.
I have tried consistently to dispel President Nasser's suspicions that Britain's policies were not being directed to bringing about genuine independence for South Arabia. I have tried to persuade him to use his authority to stop terrorism and incitement to terrorism in that country. I have sought to show him that murder and other terrorist activities in this case are not only wicked, but are wholly pointless. Although the correspondence has been friendly—and I hope that it will continue so—I must tell the House frankly and with considerable regret that President Nasser has not so far given me the undertaking for which I have asked.

Mr. Sandys: Did the right hon. Gentleman really expect it?

Mr. Brown: One of the most foolish things in the world is to believe that one can run foreign policy on the basis of picking those statesmen one likes and those one does not like. That way lie many of our greatest tragedies in the past.
The undertaking for which I asked is that President Nasser should use his considerable influence to end terrorism in South Arabia. It is in his power to remove much suffering from the people of South Arabia. He can do much to stop the senseless killing and maiming of women and children that we are witnessing now. He can, by encouraging all parties to join with the Federation in creating peaceful conditions, help to create a situation in which elections can eventually be held so that the people may freely express their own wishes. This, in my view, should be the aim of all true Arab nationalists.

Viscount Lambton: Would the Foreign Secretary be good enough to ask President Nasser to withdraw his troops in the Yemen as a condition of a declaration giving independence?

Mr. Brown: I am at the moment discussing South Arabia, and I was, in fact, writing to President Nasser about things in which South Arabia plays a large part. If the hon. Member wants a debate about the Yemen, or about his wholly irrational views of President Nasser, I will willingly have it, but today the debate is on South Arabia, and it is South Arabia about which I am speaking.
I have already expressed in this House the wish that all Adeni and other South Arabian nationalists—and I was much attacked by the right hon. Gentleman for this, but I repeat it—should return to South Arabia to play their full part in the political life of their country. In my view, this is surely the time for all those whose exile is, after all, self-imposed, to return, and to join in the discussion with the United Nations Mission and with other political groupings which generally genuinely want them to come back to co-operate—

Mr. Sandys: Really!

Mr. Brown: Yes—really; and to play their part in all that must be done to bring South Arabia to stable independence. The right hon. Gentleman speaking as he has done this afternoon is merely doing his best, as he has done so often in the past, to ensure that bloodshed goes on, instead of helping to bring about a reasonable stability in that area.

Mr. Sandys: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw that statement?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I think that perhaps the Foreign Secretary might want to rephrase the statement to avoid any suggestion of imputation against the right hon. Gentleman that would be unparliamentary.

Mr. Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the moment, I have no intention of doing that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] As you were not in the Chair at the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I may draw your attention to what happened earlier.
I was charged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham with having behaved shamefully, with having double crossed, with having broken faith, with conduct of which I should be ashamed and the right hon. Gentleman was not called to order or rebuked. I happen to feel as deeply about the right hon. Gentleman's behaviour as he said he felt about mine. May I ask why a rebuke should be addressed to me when the right hon. Gentleman was allowed to say that?

Lord Balniel: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is surely all the difference in the world between an accusation of shameful or mistaken foreign policy, and accusing my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) of deliberately encouraging bloodshed, which is what I understood the Foreign Secretary to say.

Mr. Brown: The actual phrase the right hon. Gentleman used was that the blood now being shed would be on my head. Would you tell me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the difference between the two phrases?

Viscount Lambton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Did you not ask the Foreign Secretary to withdraw what he said?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly true that I was not here at an earlier stage of the proceedings. There is obviously some limit to accusations and counter-accusations which are perfectly legitimate across the Floor of the House. I asked the Foreign Secretary to rephrase


his remarks in order to withdraw any imputation that the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)—[Interruption.] Order. I asked the Foreign Secretary to rephrase his remarks in order to withdraw, as I understood it, any imputation that the right hon. Member for Streatham was deliberately inciting to bloodshed.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not the situation quite simply that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he is perfectly entitled to make any charges he likes against us on this side, but that when anyone attacks him he squeals?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not the case at all. The duty of the Chair is to see that the legitimate bounds of Parliamentary debate and accusation are not exceeded. If they are exceeded, they should be rephrased in accordance with our rules of order.

Mr. Sandys: Further to that point of order. I suggest that there is all the difference in the world between what I said and what the Foreign Secretary said. [Interruption.] I strongly criticised the Government's decision to allow the United Nations Mission to go to Aden because I considered, in view of the threats that had been made, that this would result in increased bloodshed. I said that if the Government took what I regarded as a foolhardy and foolish decision and it did result in bloodshed, the responsibility for the deaths that were caused would be that of the Government. That is quite a different thing from my being accused of deliberately inciting or causing bloodshed. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, again to call on the Foreign Secretary to withdraw that accusation.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have heard all the speeches since the start of the debate. It seemed to me that there was a distinct difference, if I may say so, in the language which the Foreign Secretary used, which really accused my right hon. Friend of seeking to increase bloodshed. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to rephrase the sentence in the way suggested.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Further to that point

of order. I did not hear the Foreign Secretary used the word "deliberately". Everyone is imputing that word to him. He implied, as I gathered, that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman opposite might lead to this, and that he must accept responsibility for the statement. But my right hon. Friend did not use the word "deliberately", though everyone seems to be interpreting his remark in that sense.

Viscount Lambton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You asked the Foreign Secretary to rephrase his phraseology. He has not done so. Will he please do so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I try to help the House? Obviously, it is a very difficult matter. My view, as a result of 20 years' experience in this House, is that it is perfectly legitimate for one hon. or right hon. Member to say to another that his policy is calculated to produce bloodshed, but for one hon. or right hon. Gentleman to accuse another of deliberately inciting—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did not"] We shall come to what was actually said. If one hon. or right hon. Member deliberately accuses another of deliberately inciting to bloodshed that, in my opinion, is exceeding the bounds of Parliamentary debate, and should be rephrased.

Mr. Brown: I am pretty certain that HANSARD tomorrow will show that I did not use the words "deliberately incite", and I am equally certain that HANSARD tomorrow will show that the right hon. Gentleman did say that in certain events the responsibility for the blood would be on my head. Nobody thought that that remark should be withdrawn. I say that the consequences of the right hon. Gentleman's policies in the past, as his words now, have the same effect for him. He is responsible for bloodshed—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is all right."] I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Sir J. Eden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the Foreign Secretary should make it quite clear that he withdraws his wholly offensive remarks against my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We really cannot pursue it. The Foreign Secretary has, at my suggestion, rephrased what he said in a manner which is perfectly proper.

Mr. Brown: What I have really done is to restate what I said at the beginning, but we shall see in the morning. That is the situation. So far, the right hon. Gentleman and I are square, except that, like so many people who are willing to wound, the right hon. Gentleman is very loth to accept a riposte. May we now continue to debate the real issues here. First, I give way to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher).

Mr. Fisher: I am much obliged to the right hon. Genlteman. The great increase in murder and terrorism has taken place since the Government's decision to withdraw from Aden, and not before—and, in my opinion, because of it. If the Foreign Secretary denies that statement, perhaps I may quote the Written Reply to a Question today, showing 36 incidents of violence in 1964, 279 in 1965, 480 in 1966, and no fewer than 256 in the first two months of this year.

Mr. Brown: I wish it could be recorded by the recording angels that so many other speeches are being made in the middle of my speech.
I think that the incidence of terrorism has grown as there has risen a doubt about whether we were to come out of Aden—or South Arabia. That is one of the reasons why I am so bothered about the policy being urged on us by those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have so far spoken.
I was dealing with the nationalists who are exiled and saying that we genuinely want them to go back to co-operate and play their part in all that must be done to bring South Arabia to stable independence. I know that the House will not press me to go into details tonight, but I can assure hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House that we are ensuring that this is known to all those concerned.
May I, at this point, say a word about the political consultations which have recently taken place and are continuing to take place? In the extremely serious situation with which we are now faced I and my colleagues recently held urgent consultations with the High Commissioner and with Federal Ministers. The purpose of these discussions was to see what further we could do to help the

Federal Government to prepare for independence; in the first place, to take account of its worries about the possibility of external aggression when that came about; to stiffen the forces of law and order in the meantime, and generally to assist the successful accomplishment of our policies.
Two leading Federal Ministers, the Minister of External Affairs and his Adeni colleague, Mr. Girgirah, came to London recently for talks with us. After a number of meetings with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and me, it was arranged that we would let them have, as soon as possible, the answers to the various questions they had put to us. For this purpose, my right hon. Friend made a special journey to Aden last week to convey our views to the Federal Government and to carry the continuing process of political consultation one stage further.
The Minister of State submitted to the Federal Government a number of proposals affecting all these issues which relate to the attainment of independence by South Arabia. The Federal Government have told us that they now wish us to consider these further, particularly in the light of their discussions with the United Nations Special Mission. The Mission is due in London tonight and I look forward to meeting its members and discussing with them their very important task.
By discharging this with responsibility and impartiality, they have an outstandingly valuable part to play in helping to work out new constitutional arrangements with South Arabia, in assisting it to attain and then to preserve its unity and independence. The British authorities there will give the Mission all possible assistance in its task. We are now clearly approaching a crucial stage in these events.

Mr. Woodburn: In view of what my right hon. Friend has just said, would he disabuse the public mind of the idea that the Minister of State's visit has been, in the words of the Press, a failure?

Mr. Brown: It was not at all. The Minister of State has carried the discussions forward. The Federal Ministers now want to consider the position and have a chance to discuss it with their colleagues and the United Nations


Mission. That is exactly what one would expect to happen.
I am sure that the House will understand why, at this crucial moment, I cannot go into greater detail and why I deprecate much of what has been said this afternoon. I have a strong feeling that the more we say today the greater risk there is that that would increase difficulties. Lives, Arabian and British, are at stake in Aden. I shall report to the House again as soon as the discussions have reached a further stage. That may well then be the right moment for a full-scale debate which the House is entitled to have. I undertake to keep in touch through the usual channels about the arrangements for such a report and such a debate.
Before I sit down there is one thing more I wish to say. There are in this complex situation certain elements which we must take into account. The Government of an independent South Arabia must be given a fair chance to settle in. They must be welcomed into the comity of nations and must be given an opportunity to be recognised by the United Nations and other international bodies. This means that not only have we to work out a way to achieve early independence, but, at the same time, to see how the new State can have a real chance to establish itself as an independent State, secure against external aggression.
In doing this, of course, we have also to consider our own interests. We must guard against being put into a position in which we are held responsible for what happens in Aden while, at the same time, not having the power to control events. We must never lose sight of our aim, which is to create a true independence for South Arabia which is seen to be genuine and not dependent on our support.
I am ready to accept that the concern shown by hon. Members opposite for the future of South Arabia is genuine. I accept, too, the sincerity with which hon. Members have pressed on us their feeling that we should make a defence agreement with that country. But I believe most strongly that those who urge us to stay in South Arabia are doing a disservice to those whose cause they wish to champion. An announcement that we were doing that, by casting doubt on the

belief in genuine independence, would only stimulate further violence. In addition, it would almost certainly preclude the international recognition which the new State will be entitled to and the international recognition which in the end, like all other States, it must rely upon.

5.17 p.m.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have it very much in mind that a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill is in private Members time. Therefore, I do not want to take up too much of it and I shall be brief and, I hope, to the point.
That it is necessary to have this debate about the future of Aden and the future of the South Arabian Federation, few would doubt. In terms of international politics I suppose it is perhaps the most important and inflammable of all the subjects which have been before us in this Parliament. How we debate it is a matter to be decided by the Opposition. Although the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) seems incapable of thinking in anything but terms of polemics and controversy, we on this side of the House do not seek unnecessary controversy in matters of international affairs. We want to find a solution to this problem which is consistent with the honour of this country and the freedom and independence of South Arabia.
That is our purpose, but the hon. Member need not worry. If, after Easter, there is not a solution which appeals and fulfils these conditions, then a Motion of censure, no doubt, could and will be put down—but not yet. We wish to give the Foreign Secretary a full opportunity to come to a peaceful settlement of this problem.

Mr. Michael Foot: In that case, it seems that the right hon. Gentleman has proved exactly what I said. I said that I did not understand that the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) had the support of his own Front Bench. If he were to make charges of betrayal in such terms as he did, I said that surely it should be put down as a Motion of censure if the Opposition supported it. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman who appears to agree with me


instead of with the right hon. Member for Streatham.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Member need not worry. We can have a Motion of censure in good time.
I shall not go over the ground covered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) as to the Government being guilty of a breach of faith. His charges are valid. The Foreign Secretary is unconvinced and therefore feels that he is not bound by these obligations.
I would tell him and the House this. If anybody is in a position to know, I think that I myself should be. The Conservative Government and the ministers of the Federation who were negotiating at that time were totally convinced that, if the Federation was to have independence by 1968, it must be accompanied by a defence agreement covering the future of the base and the security of South Arabia; otherwise the Federation—on this both the Federal Ministers and the Conservative Cabinet were agreed—could not survive, to use the Foreign Secretary's words, as a truly independent country. Therefore, we pledged ourselves to a defence agreement having very much in mind the precedent of Malaysia. Nobody, as far as I know, has ever said that Malaysia was not independent because we kept troops in Malaysia after its independence was granted.
The trouble has been, if I may seek to analyse it objectively, that the Socialist Opposition then and the Socialist Government now have never seen the political need for a defence agreement. The reason is very clear, namely, that they have never shared our strategic appreciation of the international politics of this area. When he took office the right hon. Gentleman persuaded himself that he could better relations with Colonel Nasser's Egypt. I do not blame him. No Foreign Secretary should blindly accept the policies laid down by his predecessor, however wise that predecessor may have been. I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman for that at all.
There are facts to be taken into account. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale should consider some of them. I want to look at them accurately, as the hon. Gentleman asked me to do.
The right hon. Gentleman's approaches to Colonel Nasser have been, up till now, rebuffed or ignored. That is a fact. The right hon. Gentleman, too, has evidence of the Soviet activities in both Syria and Somaliland. I ask the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale to consider for a moment what will happen to Israel if Egypt is established in Aden and Somali in Djibouti. Let him consider that for one moment. Let him consider, too, that the Russians today are encouraging Colonel Nasser in his war in the Yemen. The Foreign Secretary knows, too, the precarious state of the Egyptian armies in the Yemen and the shaky economic situation in Egypt, which is worse than it has ever been.
Even so, although all these factors are present in the Foreign Secretary's mind, he and the Government are not willing to modify their policy in respect of a timetable for evacuation—that is really the substance of our charge—when it is quite clear that to gain time will mean everything to the new Government of the South Arabian Federation.
The interpretation of these facts and events is surely plain. It is that Colonel Nasser prefers to stay in the Yemen and to use it as a base. I would like the Foreign Secretary at some time to instruct his hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale about the school for subversion present in the Yemen and financed by Egypt, where hundreds of terrorists are being trained for the express purpose of inciting revolution in Aden—that is known—and from which Egypt could occupy Aden if and when Britain leaves it virtually undefended and from there in turn, and very much strengthened, turn the heat on Saudi Arabia.
If this Egyptian design was successful, there would be widespread political consequences right through the whole area of the Middle East. I would ask the House to consider some of them. The South Arabian Federation would be strangled at birth. Iran would begin to rearm. It is already doing so. The Foreign Secretary knows that it is now placing considerable orders for torpedo boats with us and for aircraft with the United States. It is doing this with a view to the day when, if we leave Aden and our influence is thereafter increasingly expelled from the Gulf, Iran will


feel it has to pre-empt Egyptian entry into the Gulf because it is not prepared to be isolated between the Soviet Union and an Arabia dominated by Egypt.
Saudi Arabia is already attacked. Does the Foreign Secretary pay no attention to that and to the bombing of Saudi Arabia? It is already the target for subversion. Has he not read of the happenings of last week? Then Saudi Arabia would be most seriously weakened.
When we come to the question of the future of the oil-producing States, there is the point of view—we all hear it and know it—that the oil will continue to flow because oil has to be sold. Does anyone believe that with Russia and Egypt dominating the situation in the area, oil will flow in the same quantities or at the same price? Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman is calculating the cost of his policy in Aden—I am afraid it is a fact that he has again allowed the Treasury to dictate his foreign policy—let him consider some of these political factors and the cost that they will give to Britain should the Egyptians be successful in the policy which I suggest is theirs.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: The right hon. Gentleman envisages this powerful Egypt dominating Saudi Arabia and threatening Iran. How is it that Nasser has been unable to dominate much smaller countries much nearer home, such as Syria and Yemen, in spite of trying by armed force?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Because there has been no vacuum of power into which he could walk. That is the short answer.

Mr. Mayhew: There are no British troops in Syria or Yemen.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: In the Yemen there has been a very valiant and very stiff resistance from the Royalists which Nasser has failed to overcome. The hon. Gentleman should not delude himself about what will happen if there is a complete vacuum of power in Aden. As we know, it is already full of people trained by Nasser to subvert that area. We know that there are hundreds in this school in the Yemen ready to do the same thing. The hon. Gentleman is living in a quite unreal world if he thinks that Nasser would not be able to walk into Aden at will.
All these consequences would, in our opinion, follow premature evacuation. What is more, they would be antagonistic to the free world's interests in the area. Surely the free world's interests in this area are that we should gain time for certain political objectives to mature. The first is that King Feisal and the Shah of Iran should develop the closest relations. Those are the two most stable countries in this area. The second is that they should both find a basis for cooperation with the Ruler of Kuwait and with the Sheikhs of the Gulf. The third is that there should be a peacefully developing Israel, relieved of concerted Arab pressure and secure with an outlet to the Red Sea. As far as I can judge from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, he prefers to rely on the United Nations Mission to assist South Arabia in her constitutional arrangements. I have no objection—nobody on this side of the House would have—to that.

Mr. Michael Foot: The right hon. Member for Streatham has.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No; I do not think that my right hon. Friend would object to advice on the constitutional arrangements, nor would anyone object to membership of the United Nations for an independent South Arabia Federation if that would give such a Federation any protection. Our feeling on this side of the House is that if South Arabia is to have any chance, again to use the Foreign Secretary's words, of remaining truly independent, there must be a presence of British forces for, let me say, X years rather than X months.
I do not know why the Foreign Secretary was so concerned that if after independence we were to keep our forces there, independence would in some way be judged to be "phoney". I do not remember anybody saying that about Malaysia, and yet Malaysia is independent. We have a defence agreement with Malaysia, and it has paid very big political dividends. I therefore hope that the Foreign Secretary will be sufficiently robust to reject that argument on the ground that a military presence is necessary so that the Federation shall gain confidence in itself and be able to deter external aggression.
The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask, and so is the House, how long


we consider that a presence should be there. Would we propose a commitment without end? My answer would be: certainly not. But, considering that the Federal political institutions are barely formed, that the 10 battalions of the Federal Army are still in a state of formation and that at the end of this year there will be only one trained South Arabian pilot to fly a military plane, we should realistically come to the conclusion that the South Arabian Federation must be reinforced by assistance from outside under a defence agreement; otherwise it is, I am afraid, bound to collapse and to be taken over.
In my opinion, therefore, we should realistically transfer responsibility for law and order to the Federal Government. We should establish a military mission on the lines advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham, and a military presence, not as large as we have had, not as large necessarily as we have now, but, nevertheless, a military mission and a military presence, with the essential point being immediate access for air support should the South Arabian Federation be threatened by aggression.
If, as rumour has it, the right hon. Gentleman has been proposing to the Federal Ministers that there should be a period after independence during which British Forces may stay, and if, as has been rumoured, he is thinking of three or six months, then, in my view, the term should be much more like three years because in that time we shall be able to judge exactly Egypt's intention and the Federal Government will have a chance to establish itself. Like my right hon. Friend, I believe that the eventual evacuation of British troops could be linked to the withdrawal of Egyptian forces in the Yemen.
Finally, let me take a proposition, perhaps arguable by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, perhaps in the mind of the Foreign Secretary, that Nasser might co-operate in a plan linking British withdrawal from Aden with his withdrawal from the Yemen—a pretty one-sided agreement when we are there by right and he is not. Nevertheless, if this proposition were made, I do not imagine that the right hon. Gentleman would take away British troops now. I imagine that he would say that the school for subversion must be

disbanded. He would have to ensure that the Egyptian Air Force was removed from the Yemen. He would have to ensure that the Egyptian Army was withdrawn phase by phase and that this was supervised. This would take time. Even on the plan put forward by the hon. Gentleman, time is the essence of this matter, and during that time the Federal Government should be protected beyond all doubt against any external action.
I hope that we have established our case and that the Government will think again, because, as the right hon. Gentleman says, our purpose is to establish a South Arabian Federation independent in its own right with a chance of survival. The House will usually respond to an appeal by a Foreign Secretary for time and not press matters too hard because of a solution he hopes to find round the corner. I am bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman that time is running out fast, and that on all the evidence the British Government look like failing in a responsibility to the free world. We shall, therefore, accept the right hon. Gentleman's offer of a debate following the Easter Recess. I think that I can promise the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that it will be in less lenient terms than those in which my hon. Friends and I have spoken today.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Evan Luard: The right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) made a powerful and, at times, intemperate attack on the Government's policies in relation to Aden and South Arabia. His attack was misdirected. It should have been directed not so much at the Government in their efforts to extricate this country from the entanglement in which it has found itself in South Arabia but at those who placed this country in the entanglement, namely, the right hon. Gentleman himself and his colleagues.
What are the main charges made by the right hon. Gentleman? I think there were three. The first was that the Government have let down the Federal rulers in South Arabia by being prepared to provide only for independence, without coupling it with a defence agreement or the retention of the base. I think that it is important to distinguish between three separate possibilities. One is the continuance of defence assistance to South Arabia. This is being


provided by the Government. Over the last two or three years they have been paying £7 or £8 million a year. This was increased by the agreement last year by £2½ million a year for the training and equipment of forces. Now they have agreed to provide, so it is said, additional air assistance during a transitional period.
I should have thought that this was the maximum which a colonial Government could be expected to provide for a colonial territory in a period immediately after its independence. We have not provided any more for practically any other of our ex-colonial countries. Indeed, I think that it could well be argued, as the Foreign Secretary argued, that to attempt to maintain a closer responsibility through either the retention of the base or some formal defence agreement would be more likely to imperil the newly emerging state than to assist it, because there is no doubt that this would be taken by very many people throughout the region as proving that the Government were nothing but a puppet of the British Government and in no way worthy of independence, and it would only increase the terrorist activities against it.
Therefore, either of the two further possibilities—the retention of the base for a further period or the provision of assistance under a formal defence agreement—would have been much inferior to what the Government are doing in practice, which is providing the necessary assistance to enable that Government effectively to defend itself.
It may be said by the right hon. Gentleman that, whether or not this was the desirable course, the Government were in fact committed to providing a defence agreement as such, or, more accurately, that the Government were committed by the actions of the former Government to undertake this task. But there is no clear documentary evidence that any formal agreement to this effect was made. If the previous Government had a formal commitment that such assistance would be provided, surely it would have been recorded in some written form which would have been produced by the Federal Government.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will have heard a few minutes ago a former Prime Minister say quite clearly that in his

mind and in the minds of all the members of the Cabinet this agreement stood. What documentary evidence does the hon. Gentleman want beyond that?

Mr. Luard: On the contrary, what the former Prime Minister assured us of was that it was the intention of that Government to provide such an agreement. That is entirely different. All the many words expressed on the subject over the last two years have provided nothing more than an indication that there was such an intention in the Government's mind. No successor Government can be committed simply because a previous Government had an intention of this kind.
The only kind of written record that exists is the record which has been quoted so many times, in paragraph 38 of the White Paper. The words have already been quoted this evening. All that this paragraph says is:
The delegates asked that Britain should agree to independence for the Federation, while continuing thereafter to assist in its defence. They requested that as soon as practicable the British Government should convene a conference for the purposes of fixing a date for independence…and of concluding a Defence Agreement …
The Government were committed to convening a conference. They attempted to do so and the conference failed. They have lived up to the commitment of their predecessor, which they were not necessarily bound to do. They have attempted to meet this condition. But it was not possible to reach agreement on a defence agreement, and indeed no Government could be sure in advance that the necessary terms would be met for reaching an agreement of that kind. It could, therefore, well be argued that the real responsibility lies not with the Government, who have made every effort to meet the legitimate defence needs of a newly emerging colony, but those who entered into that rash, inflated commitment to the South Arabian Government; that is the right hon. Member for Streatham and his colleagues.
The second charge is that by agreeing to withdraw troops and by not agreeing to enter into a defence agreement the British Government have worsened the security situation in the Colony and encouraged terrorist activity there. But can any reasonable person doubt that if the


British Government had, in fact, determined to keep troops in the Colony for the foreseeable future, still more if they had determined, as many hon. Members opposite have insisted, to maintain a British base there, acts of terrorism would have continued on a far wider and more intensive scale than they have done? In fact, it is not altogether surprising that there has been a recrudescence of terrorism in the last year before independence. In a Colony in which there exist no effective democratic institutions, this is the natural effect of political forces in the colony jockeying each other for power during this vital period. Terrorism during this period, therefore, is a result not of the decision not to maintain the base or the decision to withdraw troops but the decision to grant independence in 1968; namely the decision of the right hon. Member for Streatham.
The right hon. Gentleman's third charge is that the Government have betrayed the Federal rules and the Federal Government to the forces of nationalism, to terrorists within the colony, perhaps—as they would say—to President Nasser and his cohorts, by refusing to grant a defence agreement. But here again who can doubt that the power of those people would have been increased rather than decreased, if the Government had sought to enter into a defence agreement and created a situation in which any Government in Aden would have been regarded as the creature of the British Government?
My own view is that, if anything, the Government are to blame for precisely the opposite reason. It would well be argued that it is the citizens of the Colony of Aden, the townsmen of Aden, many of whom are genuinely Arab nationalists, who have been betrayed into the hands of the Federal rulers of the Protectorate. I am sorry to say that this is one of the few occasions where it appears likely that we shall be bringing a Colony to independence in a situation in which full, free, democratic elections may still not have taken place throughout its territory. Nobody could say that the Federal Government as at present constituted represents a representative and democratically created government within the territory.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: Will the hon. Member then recommend

that independence should be postponed for some time, until those elections could be held?

Mr. Luard: I would not recommend that independence should be postponed. But I would recommend that every effort should be made to ensure that elections have taken place by the time of independence.
In all its dealings the Government have treated with the Federal rulers and not with the townsmen or any other element that could be considered more representative of the people of Aden. It is to the Federal Government that it appears that the Government intend to hand over independence. It is with the Federal Government that the British Government have made their defence arrangements, to whom they have handed over arms, and for whom they are training troops. It is for the Federal Government that economic assistance will be given. It could thus be argued that the Government have bent over backwards to favour the Protectorate's Federal rulers and have, if anything, neglected the interests of the townsmen and many of the more educated sections of the population in other parts of the territory.
So much for the charges made by the right hon. Member for Streatham and other Members opposite. I now wish to turn to a more general consideration of the affairs of Aden and South Arabia, and particularly to deal now with the future and not with the past, as the right hon. Gentleman did. Anybody who considers the affairs of South Arabia and Aden objectively will recognise that the Government are faced with a very difficult problem. The main difficulty arises from the very differences which we have just considered, that between the people who live in the Protectorate, who are largely rural, uneducated Bedouin, and the highly sophisticated townsmen of Aden Colony. For any Government to create a viable political unit out of those two elements will always be very difficult. I suggest to the Government that they should not insist too vigorously on maintaining a purely unitary state in South Arabia, because it may be that in the final resort it is possible to hold together those elements only in a loose federal structure which will give a considerable element of independence for Aden Colony alone.
It is even arguable that in the final resort it may be impossible to maintain that degree of unity, and that the Government should not altogether close their eyes to the possibility of ultimate partition, in which one had the Federal territories, the territories of the Protectorate, which would inevitably become largely under the domination of Saudi Arabia, and the Colony alone, which would almost certainly come more and more under the influence of the Yemen.
My next point concerns the frontiers. Almost all the frontiers of South Arabia are at present either not delimited or not demarcated, or are neither. That is a highly dangerous condition in which any territory could achieve independence, particularly one so bitterly disputed as South Arabia. I strongly recommend the Government to take urgent steps to try to get the frontiers accurately delimited and defined in the remaining period of less than a year before the country becomes independent. At least the first steps towards that should be taken, because there is no doubt that incidents concerning the frontier—perhaps concerning legitimate disputes about the position of the frontiers—could become the cause of very intense disputes and even large-scale war in the future by any party minded to make them an excuse for such an activity.
I am also concerned about the date of independence. I felt considerable misgivings on reading in the newspapers today that the Government have apparently urged on the Federal rulers that they should accept independence next November, before they are willing to receive it. I can understand the reason for this. I suspect that it is that the Government would like this to take place about the time when the General Assembly is meeting in New York because they believe that it will be easier to encourage the General Assembly to take active steps to safeguard the independence of the new territory and perhaps even send out a peace force or military force to preserve its independence if the transition takes place while the General Assembly is meeting.
But from other points of view this seems to me to be a somewhat dangerous proceeding. First of all, there is evidently so much that remains to be done before the State will be in a condition to be able to maintain its independence

effectively. This applies to the training of troops, to which the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) was referring. Clearly, this is a matter to which we must give urgent attention over the coming months. I should have thought that it would be unwise to put forward the date of independence unnecessarily during that period.
Finally, I want to refer to the question of elections. I regard it as of fundamental importance that elections should have taken place before the territory acquires independence. I have already referred to the fact that there are many people who do not consider the existing Government to be representative of the people of Aden as a whole. It is certain that if the present Government receive independence in their present form they will be subject to very violent attack and to continuing terrorism on the part of many people in Aden who contest their legitimacy and right to represent them in the world.
After all, we in this country maintain that we stand for democratic institutions. We have in almost every other case ensured that our colonies have reached the stage of representative Government before they were given independence, and I regard it as of the greatest importance that this should be so in this case, where the right of certain groups to represent the country is so bitterly contested. The only way to bring to an end the present terrorist activities is to prove categorically to the world and to these people themselves who are the representatives of the people of Aden.
In general I am sure that the Government are following the right policy in pressing ahead with independence for South Arabia and in providing the necessary defence assistance to enable it to defend itself. Here I must take issue with the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire: it is not reasonable to suggest that the defence of the territory when it is independent must depend only and exclusively on Britain. It will have adequate forces of its own. Even if they were not adequate, it is open to the newly independent South Arabia to enter into alliances with Saudi Arabia or, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, Iran, and this may well be the course that it will follow.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that I did not give a different impression. What I want to make sure of is that there is a British presence there while the new State is building up and making progress, because it has made little progress so far.

Mr. Luard: I think it is a matter of opinion how much progress will have been made by the time independence is granted. I think it is known that, as the right hon. Gentleman commented, the Government may well be prepared to consider a brief extension of the time when British troops will remain after independence for that purpose. I doubt whether the period of three years that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned is necessary.
What is true, I agree—and this is a valid and important point—is that from the point of view of air defence it is almost certain that South Arabia will not be in a position to defend itself adequately within the near future. Therefore, it is very good news that the Government should now be considering making air assistance available and at least guaranteeing South Arabian air space.
But much more important, to my mind, than the issue of the immediate defence needs of the country, is the kind of political set-up that will be created when Aden attains independence, because it is on this that will depend the kind of stability that is attained in the territory, and the kind of international recognition that it will receive, including whether it is accepted and taken into the United Nations. The Government ought to think very seriously before allowing this important territory to attain independence without a Government that has been freely elected by all its people.

5.55 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: While I was listening to the remarks by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) I was trying to think of a kindly but accurate adjective. I began with "dispassionate", went on to "detached" and finished up with "unreal". The hon. Gentleman remarked that, according to newspaper reports—and they have not been denied—we may be talking in terms now not even of January or February next year but of November this year for independence. Apparently the

hon. Member feels that January or February would be almost equally unreal—

Mr. Luard: Mr. Luard rose—

Sir F. Bennett: Please let me finish my first sentence. The hon. Member will have plenty of time later.
The unfortunate British Government will find it very difficult to rearrange the frontiers of the Federation, bring in constitutional changes and have free elections between now and November this year or January next year.

Mr. Luard: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I was referring to November. If he was listening he will realise that I was questioning the date.

Sir F. Bennett: I would pay tribute to the hon. Member. It is about the only tribute I shall pay to him. I do so because he seemed to have some doubts about November. But even if one accepts January or February, it is totally unreal to think of the Government rearranging the frontiers of the Federation and holding free elections and also altering the constitution between now and January or March next year, let alone November this year.
In his opening remarks the hon. Gentleman went back to the rather soiled interpretation of the pledge, and I shall come to that later. He also made an inaccurate statement that I should like to correct. He said that it was the first ex-colonial territory where we should be asked to make standing defence arrangements after the achievement of independence. I think that HANSARD will bear me out on this. In the case of Malaya we did that over a very considerable period of time when the threat was almost exactly similar—internal subversion stimulated from outside.

Mr. Luard: The hon. Gentleman should listen to the speeches by other persons if he wishes to quote them. I said that there was almost no other case of a territory that we had brought to independence which did not have a democratically elected Government. I was not then referring to the defence agreement at all. I am aware that there have been cases in which we have entered into defence agreements. We did so with Nigeria, but that was not a happy example.

Sir F. Bennett: I think the hon. Member will find that the record will reveal that he was talking in that case of defence arrangements after independence had been achieved. With regard to making sure of having a democratic Government before we hand over independence, all I can say is that the general situation today does not show that that aim has been successfully carried out.
Earlier my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) and the rest of us on this side of the House were accused by the Foreign Secretary of being obsessed with Nasser. The Foreign Secretary said that Nasser had got into our blood and brains. This would seem to indicate that only we on this side of the House are worried about President Nasser's ambitions. I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary consulted the Israelis before making his speech. I wonder whether the Jordanians have been consulted; they were on the other side at Suez. I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary has consulted Libya, and how Libya feels about President Nasser's ambitions; Libya was on the other side over the Suez affair. Has the Foreign Secretary discovered the feelings in Tunis about President Nasser's ambitions in North Africa? I wonder whether Saudi Arabia has been consulted to find out whether it is equally happy about President Nasser's ambitions?
It is not just a few reactionary Tories who are worried about President Nasser. Indeed, I might say that it is almost only hon. Gentlemen opposite who do not seem to be worried about his activities in that part of the world. Finally, what about the Yemenis and what is taking place in their country? They are not ranked among the imperialists and yet they have had to suffer blatant Egyptian aggression over a long period. The use of poison gas and bombing of the worst possible sort have repeatedly taken place in this part of the world. We are entitled to wonder what the reaction would have been on the Government benches if it had been someone else, other than Nasser, who had been dropping the gas bombs on an inoffensive people in a small State.
I remember a short time ago when the Americans dropped tear gas bombs which made people sick for a few hours. There were marches to the American Em-

bassy and hon. Members below the Gangway opposite were frothing at the mouth about the evil of the Americans. But they have made no protests of any sort about the gas bombing by the Egyptians. We have been told that only the Conservative Party are worried about all this. What about those people in the mountains who are being bombed and gassed? I wonder whether they share the Foreign Secretary's view.
The Foreign Secretary told us, as naïvely as possible, in an unusually sober speech—if I may coin a phrase—that he had been exchanging notes with President Nasser, that they had been very friendly, amicable and amiable, but that unfortunately they had got nowhere, as with so many of the Government's policies. He was rather surprised that President Nasser had not given the Foreign Secretary an assurance that he would cease his ambitions in that part of the world. Have we now a Foreign Secretary who believes that President Nasser is of such mettle that a note from Whitehall will make him drop his ambitions? Do we think that Hitler would have responded to such a note asking him to change his aims? Yet both these gentlemen have the same policy—open aggression, subversion of neighbours and extending domination, in this case throughout the Middle East.
The only other information that we were given had already appeared in the newspapers. It was announced in Cairo at this, of all moments, by Hassan Zaki, the Egyptian Economics Minister, that Britain had granted Egypt unlimited credit, which apparently involved extending the repayment period on the existing debt. At the same time as the Foreign Secretary admits that the Egyptian Government are openly subverting the stability of the Government in Southern Arabia, are openly engaged in aggression in the Yemen and are openly undertaking acts of subversion throughout the Middle East, contrary to British interests, we choose to grant economic facilities to President Nasser which we deny to many other Governments which are much more friendly towards ourselves.
May I return to the question of the pledge—to the fact that we say that the Government have broken a pledge and that the Government say that there never


was a pledge. It is not just the Conservative Members who claim that a pledge has been broken. No one on the Government benches seems to bother to ask the Federal Ministers, who represent the other party to the promise. They simply quote what is said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) or my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton). But it is not our interpretation alone which matters. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite may have their interpretation, but the interpretation which was not once mentioned by the Foreign Secretary is that of the Ministers of the Federal Government. He paid no attention to their interpretation of the pledge.
We can read the newspapers, and we know that almost without exception they say exactly what we say—that a deliberate breach of faith has taken place by the Labour Government. Only today in a newspaper Girgiroh, the Minister of Information in the Federal Government, is quoted as saying that not much was achieved by Mr. Thomson's visit. He said,
We made it clear that we felt that the British Government owed us adequate protection after independence and that they are committed to the Defence Treaty which we discussed in 1959.
That is not my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham speaking. That is a Federal Minister in Southern Arabia. He said—and this is scandalous in that it reveals a new line of defence by the British Government—
The Labour Government say we made an agreement with a Conservative Government".
Is this a new defence by the Government? Are they saying that the pledge was made with a Conservative Government and therefore need not be honoured or are they saying that there never was a pledge? The Government should bear in mind that the important people in this connection are those affected by the pledge, the people in Southern Arabia, and they are solid in their agreement with the views expressed from this side of the House.

Mr. David Winnick: Mr. David Winnick (Croydon, South) rose—

Sir F. Bennett: I know that the hon. Member always has itchy feet, but no doubt he will get a chance to speak.
If it is all clear sailing at present and if our interpretation is wrong and there never was a pledge, or an understanding or an obligation, why is the Minister of State flying over there in a "lollipop" plane, seeing people in a 48 hours' visit and rushing hither and thither in all these negotiations and consultations? If the Government are quite clear that they have never given a pledge and have never been committed, why all this running to and fro, with discussions and suggestions that there might be a change of mind? If there is no commitment, and if the Government have a clear conscience, let them act on that belief.

Viscount Lambton: Does not my hon. Friend agree that pledges were given by the Conservative Party in 1959 and 1964 but also by the Minister of Defence and by one of the Under-Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs?

Sir F. Bennett: I thought so, but right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to give the same interpretation as that which is given by all reasonable people elsewhere. I repeat, it is Federal spokesmen who are saying that the Government are wriggling out of their responsibilities.
In these circumstances we have a right to persist again and again in trying to get the Government to appreciate their responsibilities before it is too late. For that reason I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire say that if after Easter the situation continued to deteriorate as at present, and if the Government do not take advantage of the breathing space which they have been offered to have a serious review of the situation, we shall press for another debate, this time of a much more serious and censorious nature.
We are entitled to ask, if it is said that we are wrong in our criticism, what is the Government's policy? I suspect that in their hearts and minds they know that they have got themselves into an awful muddle. They realise only too well that in seven or 10 months' time, or at most a year, they will not be able to abandon South Arabia to its fate. Various ideas are being put forward by which they can show that while they do not admit that they have changed their minds or their policies, in fact they have changed both. It would be much better if the Foreign


Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister had the guts to come to the House and say, "We realise that we have made an appalling mistake in our policy in South Arabia. We realise that it will go on causing bloodshed every day until a change is made". The sooner they come to that conclusion the better it will be for the good name of this country and the sooner they will end the appalling, consequences which must continue to flow while the present situation of doubt remains in that part of the world—a situation which pleases President Nasser more than it pleases anyone else in the world.
At Question Time the other day we were told that the main reason why we cannot stay in Aden is the cost. We were told that it was beyond our means to keep even a small token force in that part of the world to act as a trip wire against aggression. We were told that we cannot afford that in our Defence Review and our economic policy. At the same time we were told that we are willing to contribute to a United Nations international force, with troops. I asked—and I did not realise that the question would be so relevant so soon—why it would be cheaper to contribute to a United Nations force than to keep our Army in South Arabia, and whether it was simply because they would be wearing blue tin hats instead of khaki.
We all know that that excuse is absolute nonsense. The Government are realising too late, and too little, that they have made an awful mistake. They are responsible for the bloodshed in that part of the world and will go on being responsible for it until they have the good sense to realise that they have made a mistake and change their policy drastically.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. David Winnick: There appears to be a great colonial divide separating the two sides of the House on this question. I take part in the debate, because like other hon. Members. I am very concerned about the situation and the possibility of further escalation with the result that we may find ourselves involved, if we are not careful, in a colonial type of war.
I must make it clear from the outset that I am firmly opposed to all forms of terrorist attacks. I have no desire to

defend, condone or whitewash the terrorist attacks on civil and military personnel in Aden. But we must remember that terrorist attacks against us are not unknown in our colonial history.
Time and again in the past, we have been faced with a colonial situation like this because of blunders and mistakes in our policy, with terrorism the outcome—for instance, Ireland, Cyprus, Palestine and Egypt. We should, therefore, not be surprised by the terrorist attacks in Aden, though we certainly should not condone them. But the main responsibility for what is happening lies with the last Government, and, in particular, with the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). The essential mistake was to force the Colony of Aden into Federation obviously against the wishes of its inhabitants.

Viscount Lambton: Is the hon. Gentleman saying also that my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) is in any way responsible for the Egyptian invasion of the Yemen?

Mr. Winnick: I am not talking about the Yemen. I am discussing the Aden situation.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: The hon. Gentleman is, unfortunately, and, I am sure, unintentionally, misleading the House. This subject has a great deal to do with the Yemen, because the terrorist organisation has called for the liberation of South Yemen, as it calls South Arabia, which it is trying to make part of the Yemen.

Mr. Winnick: In the Yemeni situation one must recognise that the forces of counter-revolution are in many ways responsible for the present happenings, but I certainly have no desire to defend what Egypt is doing there. Certainly, if what hon. Members opposite claim is true, I would be the last to condone it. Nevertheless, I have not heard hon. Members opposite speak out about the atrocities in Vietnam. They have been very silent about those happenings.
When Aden was forced into the Federation, it was obvious that there was a good deal of opposition to it. A report in The Times on 19th January, 1963, when Federation took place, said:
Black flags mourning the merger would have flown from many house-tops as a silent


demonstration of opposition, but the police went round collecting the flags from houses and shops. …
The anti-federation People's Socialist Party protested about the merger in a telegram to Sir Charles Johnston, the Governor, who now becomes the High Commissioner for the protectorate and Aden. The P.S.P., which has the support of the .. Aden Trade Union Congress, also sent similar telegrams to six Conservative and Labour M.P.s in London urging them to lodge a strong protest with the British Government.
This is the essential point. The right hon. Member for Streatham is largely responsible for what is happening. His responsibility lies in the fact that he forced Aden to become part of the Federation when there was large-scale nationalist opposition to it. I have no desire to widen the debate, but in many ways this is the sort of sham federation that reminds one of what took place with the Central African Federation, for example. We should have learnt the lesson then. One cannot order the lives of others. One cannot decide on a federation and other such projects unless one has the support of the majority of the people concerned—and in Aden the support of the people was obviously lacking.
What is unfortunate about the whole situation is that we have lined ourselves up—and I put most of the blame for this on the last Government—with all the backward, reactionary elements in the Middle East, with all the sheikhs and sultans who have no desire for progress. I have no desire to act as the voice of Arab nationalism and certainly not as if I were spokesman for Nasser, but I agree that the way in which we have behaved in the Middle East since the war has made Nasser appear to be the champion of all the progressive, radical and nationalist movements.
The right hon. Member for Streatham was recently asked on television what he had regretted most during the time that the Conservatives were in office. His reply was, "That we left Suez". That was his one regret about the foreign policy of the Government of which he was a leading member.
When the constitutional talks took place in June, 1964, the present terrorist leader, Abdullah al Asnag, said in an interview in The Times that the constitutional proposals could not under any

circumstances be accepted by him, adding:
I solemnly warn and declare (and it is no idle threat) that our party may no longer be in a position to confine our people to a peaceful struggle.
The report went on:
Referring to President Nasser … he said it was ridiculous to blame the present troubles in South Arabia on him. They were 'the natural result of the chain of mistakes, maladministration and criminal neglect practised daily by the British administration in that territory'.
It is not too late even now to recognise past mistakes and that in the Aden situation we have been dealing with the wrong people. I appeal to the Government seriously to consider negotiating and talking direct with people like al Asnag and other nationalist leaders.
I know that many people—obviously including hon. Members opposite—would say that this was out of the question and that we cannot negotiate with terrorists. The right hon. Member for Streatham believes that we should lock them all up but that would only make the situation worse. A few years ago, in the Cyprus troubles, we were told that it was impossible to negotiate with Archbishop Makarios and those who were doing the killings. But in the end we had to talk with the Archbishop just as we have had to negotiate with other colonial leaders. We had to do it because there was no alternative. How many lives would have been saved in Cyprus if we had been willing to negotiate earlier?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would the hon. Gentleman apply the same logic to the Rhodesian situation? Would he negotiate with the leader there.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman is proving my point. In Rhodesia, we are dealing with a minority against a majority. Would anyone deny that the vast majority of Africans are against the Smith régime?
In Aden, on the other hand, we are refusing to deal with the representatives of the majority. Instead, we are dealing with a minority—the sultans, sheikhs, and others who in no way have any understanding of twentieth century life. These are the very elements who want to stop progress in the Middle East.
Last week, I was glad to see an article the Sun by Michael Leapman and I hope


that hon. Members will see a copy of it later. Writing about al Asnag, Mr. Leapman said:
The merger, to form the South Arabian Federation, was pushed through in 1963 by Mr. Duncan Sandys, then the Conservatives Colonial Secretary.
Had he recognised the urgency and the realities of the situation in 1963, many of the recent killings might have been avoided.
He thought that by giving power to the sheikhs and sultans he could effectively stifle budding nationalist sentiment and ensure that control of the Federation stayed with people likely to be friendly to Britain.
I hope that the Government will listen to the following passage from the article:
It is up to Britain—and specifically up to Foreign Secretary George Brown—to prove him wrong.
It is unpleasant to have to deal with terrorist leaders, but we have done it before—in Cyprus, Kenya and elsewhere.
Asnag is the one Adeni leader who has the confidence of the bulk of the people.
Mr. Brown—perhaps through the United Nations mission who are to visit the colony—must try to come to terms with him if much further bloodshed is to be avoided.

Sir F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is quoting words of Mr. al Asnag. Does he realise that one of his own colleagues on the Government Front Bench, in a recent broadcast, referred to the man who, the hon. Gentleman is saying, is the sort of man with whom we should negotiate, in these words?
That is the chap who is in the Yemen, sending hired assassins paid with Egyptian money into the Federation.
At least his right hon. Friend does not share his attitude to Mr. al Asnag.

Mr. Winnick: Surely the House should realise that in all the previous colonial situations which we have faced, the people leading the movements have been described in terrible words and perhaps have committed terrible deeds, which I do not defend, but that in the end we have had to recognise that they are the people who have had the support of the majority in their countries.
I have quoted from the article in the Sun. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will have noticed the excellent editorial in The Guardian for today, which, among other things, says:
The sheikhdoms are perhaps a little less oppressive to their people than they were, and a slow movement into the twentieth century may have begun. But civil rights are minimal,

slavery still exists, and education is restricted. The sheiks will not readily yield their personal power. Britain is being asked to defend feudalism—often a brutal feudalism. And it is to feudalism that the more advanced society of Aden State is being subordinated through the Federation.
It is not just a minority viewpoint. It seems that people are learning from previous situations, and that is why I make the plea tonight that we should begin to negotiate directly with people like al Asnag and other nationalist leaders.
Much has been said today about the United Nations Mission. It has been said, for example, that terrorism will increase as a way of showing the Mission that the British and Federation officials are not in charge. If that were to happen, I should regret it bitterly. People like al Asnag and the other leaders of F.L.O.S.Y. should recognise that there is a large section of public opinion in Britain and outside which is aware of the realities of the situation in Aden. There is no need for further killing to take place as a way of convincing the United Nations Mission that it has a large part to play in that Colony. I deplore all forms of killing and cannot see the necessity of further killing to convince the United Nations of something of which many of us on this side of the House are well aware at the moment.
I hope that, when the United Nations Mission goes to Aden, it will make a far-reaching report on the whole situation. Once it has made that report, I hope that all of the parties concerned will heed what it says.
We are coming to the end of our colonial era. Today, we have very few Colonies left. Much of our colonial history is not something about which many of us would be proud. Much of it has ended in bloodshed and squalor, and we have been forced out time and time again because we have found that we could not continue to rule those colonies. I hope that we shall end our colonial era in Aden in a graceful way. We must be willing to learn from the lessons of previous colonial situations and accept that we have to get out of Aden as promised. We must be willing to recognise that the future in Aden, as in other parts of the Middle East, does not lie with the old feudal forces of the sultans and sheikhs, but with the modern


forces of Arab nationalism. Nothing in the world can change that.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. James Davidson: As part of a phased withdrawal from east of Suez, my Liberal colleagues and I would be in favour of withdrawal from Aden and the eventual substitution of our present forces and expensive bases east of Suez by a highly mobile task force, preferably with bases and servicing facilities on Australian territory, which could fulfil our S.E.A.T.O. obligations and any others which we have in that area.
We believe that our future lies much more in Europe than in the Far East—

Mr. R. T. Paget: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us if his task force is to have aircraft carriers or not?

Mr. Davidson: That is a crucial point, and, like the former Secretary of State for Defence for the Navy, I should be in favour of retaining our aircraft carriers at least for another 10 or 15 years. However, when I talk of a task force, I mean a force based on the aircraft carrier, but also with commando carriers and so on.
The right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) raised the possibility of there being no room for increased forces at Bahrain. I spent over two years there as navigating officer in a frigate, and probably I know it as well as most people in the House. It would serve perfectly well as a base for a task force of the type which I envisage.
That raises the question whether or not we require a British presence in Aden if, after our evacuation, we should change our minds and come to some sort of defence agreement with the Federal Government. While forces actually in Aden are not necessary, we can have the advantages of a defence agreement with Aden by keeping this type of mobile task force in the area.
I am opposed to the continuation of the propping up of 19th century sheikhdoms which are now out of date, but we should give every form of technical and financial assistance to those sheikhdoms moving towards democracy, some of which are spreading wealth derived from oil and

other resources through their local communities.
Just as we have put a date on our withdrawal from Aden, so, eventually, should we put a date on our withdrawal from the Persian Gulf area. Anyone looking back at the Treaty concerned can see that we have no real need or obligation under that Treaty to remain in the Persian Gulf area, and the function of the highly mobile task force which I suggest would take care of our obligations. However, when the time comes, we must not withdraw from the area in such a way as to leave political chaos behind us, which is precisely what I think will happen in Aden in 1968, or in November of this year if it takes place earlier.
It is rumoured that the right hon. Member for Streatham will be going out there as a sort of mediator—one might say as a sort of—possibly seeking the credit which he gained in Malta for resolving the situation in Aden. I wish him luck if he goes. But there are people who are of the opinion that it is he who was largely responsible for the Aden situation today. I do not exonerate the Government entirely from responsibility, but in support of what I say I wish to read from a letter in today's Times from the former hon. Member for The Wrekin—

Mr. Sandys: Is this a joke which the hon. Gentleman is making about me, because I have no knowledge of any visit of mine to Aden?

Mr. Davidson: I am delighted to have that assurance, and I apologise if I was wrong. I understood that he was to go.
In his letter, Mr. William Yates says:
Your leading article on Aden foresees the extension of the Yemen civil war to both South-West Arabia and Aden. This appears to be inevitable because of the present political rivalry between President Nasser's Nationalists established in Aden and the Yemen Republic on the one hand, and some of the Federal rulers who are in sympathy with the Yemen Royalists and Saudi Arabia on the other. The proposed United Nations mission to Aden and South Arabia might find a compromise, but the restraining influence of the U.S.S.R. on Egypt, and that of the United States on Saudi Arabia, will be essential to the success of the mission.
I agree entirely with the point of view expressed so far. Mr. Yates goes on:
The crisis in Aden arises from the Conservative policy of Mr. Duncan Sandys, M.P.,


who deliberately forced the protesting colony of Aden into a federation, designed by Britain to give the federal tribal rulers autocratic power over Aden. The agreed objective was for Britain to smash the Aden Nationalists as a political force before granting independence to the Federation.
Although Mr. William Yates may not be the last word on the matter, he is accepted as some sort of expert. He is an Arabic speaker and was out there for a number of years. It goes on:
This policy is as vicious as it is strategically foolish because the paramount British interest in South-West Arabia is the security of Aden and the good will of the Adenis and Yemenis who work in the British oil refinery and in the greatest oil bunkering port in the world.
I suggest that Britain could regain the good will of Aden by allowing a General Election and the formation of an Aden State Government. Britain could then sign a Treaty of Independence with Aden State which would permit Aden to become the free port of the Federation but responsible for its own internal security.
With Britain's help the independent State of Aden would be able to come to terms as a confederate State with the federal rulers, and together they could later explore the possibilities of a greater Yemen free trade area.
I will not say that I agree with everything expressed in that letter, but it is certainly a general point of view with which I agree.
I should like to turn to the suggestion of the formation of the Aden State Government. I believe it is essential that Aden itself should be given the opportunity to opt out of the Federation. This kind of Federation, dominated by certain autocratic elements, is very much out of date.
I myself saw the results of this type of Government set-up, if one can call it a Government, during my two years in the Persian Gulf and Arabian area. We used to call at many of the little Trucial States and shiekdoms, and we were always very welcome there mainly—I sometimes think only—because our doctor was willing to go ashore and to spend anything up to 48 hours working non-stop, dealing with every conceivable kind of disease, with the very poor and uncared-for element of the population. Sometimes they would hear by bush telegraph weeks ahead that we were coming, and there would be a tremendous queue in some of these sheikdoms for our doctor to perform his services.
Events have moved a long way, and many of the sheikdoms are now working towards a more democratic form of government and spreading more of their wealth, but Aden will inevitably disaffiliate from the Federation sooner or later, whether we like it or not, and we should give them the opportunity to do this before we get out in 1968.
Cases have been quoted of similarities with other situations. Much the same happened in Federation of Malaysia when Singapore chose to disaffiliate. I feel certain that this will happen with the South Arabian Federation. Surely it would be better if we gave the opportunity to Aden before we actually got out ourselves?
I might add, as an illustration that on 11th February, when Federation was supposedly to be celebrated in Aden, it was far from celebrated. It was used as a day of protest in the Aden Colony.
As for the matter of the pledge and the possibility of a defence agreement, I say: why not, provided that it is not an open-ended agreement that goes on for ever? I believe that if we enter into a defence agreement with the Aden Protectorate, or with the South Arabian Federation, that it should have a definite time limit and the force should be sufficiently strong to fulfil its function. This does not mean leaving troops on the soil of Aden or the South Arabian Federation. I believe that such a function could be carried out by this highly mobile task force which I mentioned earlier.
We already have a tripartite agreement with France and Israel. We have also been called to Uganda and Kenya as a kind of armed referee. I see no reason why we should not have a defence agreement of this type with the South Arabian Federation. In the long run our policy in the area of the Arabian peninsula must be to encourage the Trucial Coast sheikhs to make a defence agreement with Saudi Arabia, and we should encourage, by means of technical aid and trade contacts, the spread of the wealth and the educational opportunities which the wealthier members of these Arab States now enjoy. We shall encourage the spread of these throughout the Arab community in the Arabian peninsular.
In Aden we must accept the fact that nationalist support is extremely widespread. If I may quote from an editorial


in The Guardian of 15th February, it says:
The strikes last month and the demonstrations this weekend have again shown that popular support for the nationalists is far more widespread than can be explained by intimidation or foreign instigation.
We should accept this fact. It is not solely a matter of Nasser and his followers. It is to some extent an indigenous movement, and I believe that we would be wise to accept this. Only last month Nasser, in an interview with Robert Stephens of the Observer, called on the United Kingdom to have talks with the nationalists as a step towards peaceful settlement of the present conflict. Is Nasser really quite such an ogre as some people appear to imagine? Personally I do not believe that he is quite as bad as he is painted.
To summarise; before going we should lose no time in starting talks with the Aden nationalists, with a view to permitting Aden to opt out of the South Arabian Federation if she so wishes. We should be prepared to enter into a limited defence agreement with Aden and with the South Arabian Federation, but it should have a time limit. The alternative would be some form of general treaty. We should welcome the despatch of a United Nations Mission to the area as soon as possible, and we must wish them well in the very difficult task that lies ahead. We should encourage the Trucial Coast sheikhs to make a defence treaty arrangement with Saudi Arabia, and, by means of technical aid and trade, we should try to take every opportunity of spreading the wealth and educational opportunity throughout the whole Arab community in the Arabian peninsular.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Colin Jackson: I do not wish to spend a great time in dealing with the remarks of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in their discussion of the Aden and South Arabian situation. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) had a splendid mediaeval and feudal ring about it. He summed it up by saying that we should ban F.L.O.S.Y. He believes that by so doing Aden nationalism might go away. He also said that we should ban the United Nations, but

that comes into any speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) said that we should maintain troops in Aden for an X number of years rather than for an X number of months. Whether he was adopting the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham, that the troops should consist of one battalion, I am not quite sure, because if such advice were followed I know, from my own personal experience of British troops in Aden, with the total that are there now, that it would be an almost untenable position. If there were only one battalion, the soldiers would be in an impossible position.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire also said that he looked forward to the moment when security in Aden Colony was handed over to federal forces. He may look forward to the moment, but I can assure him that the people of Aden do not look forward to that moment. I recall that about 18 months ago I was in A1 Ittayed, the capital of the South Arabian Federation, and talking over lunch to some extremely pleasant and courteous gentlemen of the Federal régime. They said, "Why don't you hand it over to us? We would finish it off in half a day ", and the glint in the eyes of those gentlemen left me in no doubt about the character of what they had in mind.
The problem is that the people of Aden have been left without any defence at all. They are not allowed to have their own military force, and, as The Times said, the prospect for the people of Aden, of repression and bloodshed, is a grim one. I would deplore any early handover of security control to the federal forces in South Arabia, or any hand-over of security control in Aden, This is one of the last of the British Colonies which is coming up for independence. We have to admit that it is one of the most difficult to solve, especially when party politics are discussed.
We are trying to foresee the future of two territories—Aden, twentieth century, trade unions, high standard of living, sophisticated town dwellers, and the hinterland of sheikdoms, mediaeval at the best. It was once said of the Yemen that it was not a question that it was


going forward slowly, but that it had gone back consistently ever since the marib dams were destroyed in the sixth century. It is rather like trying to join a modern Glasgow, with the Highlands of Bonnie Prince Charlie, and to think that one can do this in any closely organised and controlled State with the power of the Federal rulers being supreme in sophisticated Aden is ignoring completely the feelings of the people in the Colony of Aden, and ignoring the abilities of the Federal territories.
Reference has been made to the attitude of Egypt over the future of South Arabia. When I was in Cairo, in January, I spoke to President Nasser, and the comments that we exchanged were similar to those given by Robert Stephens in the Observer, to which reference has been made. Without going into any personal details, I think that it is fair to present this attitude of Egypt, without necessarily accepting it, as a contribution to a general debate, that the President would say, "What interests have I in a war which will embrace Aden?". He said, "I helped the nationalists in Algeria with arms and training, but once Algeria became independent I had to go particularly carefully".
It has been said that if Egypt did not help the nationalists in Aden the Syrians would, and this is rather a typical comment which one would hear around the Middle East. President Nasser's principal concern was that there should be a stable Government in Aden, because he said that the main problem of Aden being independent would be 15,000 people out of work and finding jobs for them.
To suggest, as some people do, that physically the forces of President Nasser will move from the Yemen into Aden—and I heard it described in a previous debate of the Army Estimates that they would go up the coast to Mukulla, Muscat and Sharjah and Dubai—is giving them credit for greater mobility than they are ever likely to achieve, but if they were to move from the Yemen to Aden—and I do not subscribe to some of the actions in the Yemen—it might well be disastrous, and if one goes to Cairo and talks to Egyptian people there one learns that they are not enamoured of an extensive war in Arabia or any other part of the

Middle East. I do not, therefore, think that one should necessarily assume that the Egyptians are hell-bent on the production of force.
I turn now to deal with the question of the Aden nationalists, the F.L.O.S.Y. leaders. Many of us have been tragically disappointed in seeing the way in which F.L.O.S.Y. has been dragged into violence. I have known Abdullah el Asnag for many years. He is a man who would be a credit to any nation as a person in authority. There is no doubt that some injection of violence came from outside, so that some nationalists would say, "I dare not stand up against it, otherwise I or my relatives will be affected". Nevertheless, as has been said, as nations proceed towards independence, and where there are not clearly obvious satisfactory solutions showing themselves, as in Cyprus and in Kenya, there will be violence.
I was in touch with the Aden nationalists in Cairo, and I have subsequently heard from Abdullah el Asnag. They are prepared to take part in talks, but there is a difficulty of which Her Majesty's Government are fully appraised. It is their demand for the dissolution of the Federal Government. This is unacceptable in real politics at this stage of the Aden crisis, but I would not give up hope that there will be a meeting between the Aden nationalists and representatives of the British Government. The problem is to arrange a venue which will neither embarrass the nationalists, nor interfere with the British Government's general relations with the Federal Republic of South Arabia.
If we can get contact established—and it is not easy—then I foresee this kind of situation developing. The United Nations Mission will arrive in Aden at the end of this month. Coinciding with this there will be the release of political detainees—not military assassin detainees—the return of the nationalists, and—it will be a package deal; one has to be an optimist to see this happen, but the alternative is drifting chaos—an easing of terrorism. Once people start terrorist activities they cannot be switched off like a tap. We saw this in Cyprus.
The difficulty is that people like Mackawee will be in fear of their lives, and the question is whether he is sufficiently brave to go back. I think


that the three factors need to come together, the release of the detainees, the arrival of the U.N. Mission, and the cessation of terrorism. This is the basic point from which any solution must flow.
Should we then get talks between the Federal Government and the nationalist representatives, I think that we must look much more to a coalition settlement in South Arabia than for a close, centrally organised Government. Reference has been made to the possibility of an independent city state for Aden. I do not think that this is realistic, but unless the people of Aden are allowed to have their own administration, and control over their own affairs, unless they are free from the fear of Federal guards and troops, there will be no peace in that part of the world. It is totally impossible to imagine a South Arabian Government in which there has been no opportunity for the people of Aden State to express their opinions.
I hope that alongside these talks which will be aimed at a loose Federal Government, inevitably the major territory is the protectorate area, and, therefore, must be controlled by the sheikhs, but within this framework, as the talks go on, I hope that the U.N. Mission will not pack up and go home once people come to sit round the table. I hope that it will remain right through to independence.
It is not impossible that we would get an arrangement at the moment of independence for a United Nations force to be there. It is easy to scoff at the United Nations, but it is fairly easy to point to its successes, such as the action of the Pakistan element in West Irian. In Aden, there are interests similar to those of the United Nations Cyprus situation and where it is a question of who are the Turks and who are the Greeks. The United Nations has done a good job there.
If the United Nations were not along the Gaza Strip, there would be enormous bloodshed in the area. I do not believe that King Faisal wants to fight President Nasser, or vice versa, because they do not know who will win, but they would like a good excuse not to fight because somebody is standing in the way.
The United Nations force could save South Arabia and the Arabian peninsula from itself and it would not be a bad

thing if, in relinquishing one of the last British responsibilities in the world, we arrived at a solution which recognised the wishes of the people—federal in the mountains and modern in the town, with a United Nations force which might have a British element guaranteeing the peace of the area for the first few years.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: Apart from a notable speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), this has been—understandably—a thoroughly bad-tempered debate. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was accused by one of my hon. Friends of being an apologist for Colonel Nasser. I have never thought that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was in any way an apologist for Colonel Nasser, or could ever be found permanently in his camp, because Colonel Nasser is far too moderate a middle-of-the-road figure to command the political allegiance of the hon. Member.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) and many other Members referred to our colonial record. Most hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that our record of decolonisation in the last twenty years, carried out by both the main parties, has generally been one of considerable success. But there have been some notable failures. For instance, there was the way in which we got out of the Central African Federation. That endangered the chance of peace in Southern Africa.
There was the way in which we dropped our responsibilities in Palestine, which has probably produced the major threat to peace in the world today. There was the way in which we withdrew from Kashmir and ran away from our responsibilities. That has watered the seeds of conflict between India and Pakistan and has produced untold misery in the Indian sub-Continent.
On the other hand, in Cyprus weeks and months of patient negotiation produced a situation in which, when the inevitable communal troubles between the Greeks and the Turks arose, the fact that British bases and our rights of access thereto were assured and our responsibilities under the treaty were well defined enabled us to move hi quickly and to bring about a situation in which our


N.A.T.O. allies, the Greeks and the Turks, were not forced at each other's throats, and the United Nations could come in and work on the basis that we had established.

Mr. Winnick: Surely the mistake that we made in Cyprus, and that we are in danger of making in Aden, was that at the beginning we refused to negotiate with the people with whom we should have negotiated. Under the hon. Gentleman's Government Archbishop Makarios was exiled. Was not that wrong? Is not the danger in Aden that we shall repeat our mistake in Cyprus?

Mr. Goodhart: As was shown after independence was given to Cyprus, the main danger was that the two communities would go at each other's throats. There was a long record of communal violence between Greeks and Turks throughout that part of the Mediterranean. Because of our patient negotiations, that threat was averted.
This, unfortunately, is not likely to happen in Aden, where the legacy that we are leaving behind is as depressing as any in our colonial record. The first question concerning the legacy that we are leaving behind is that of the relationship between the town of Aden and the hinterland. The hon. Member for Brig-house and Spenborough (Mr. Colin Jackson) compared the two areas to the Glasgow of today and the Highlands of Bonnie Prince Charlie in the 'forty-fives. That is putting altogether too rosy a view on the position. I would suggest that the correct analogy is between Millwall on the one hand and the Scottish Highlands of the fifteenth century on the other.
Some hon. Members have talked as though the Port of Aden is a thriving centre of intellectual sophistication. Reference has been made to the intellectual sophisticates of Aden, but none of us who has been there would reckon this as one of the major intellectual centres, even of that part of the world. It is more applicable to the port and constituency of Millwall. It is applicable in size, because when we talk about giving independence to the city of Aden we are talking of something which is a great deal smaller than the Greater London Borough of Bromley, and is far more applicable in size to our constituencies.
It is hardly surprising that in the past ten or twenty years, although there has been a mass of constitutional invention by this country, an attempt to work out a satisfactory relationship between Aden and the surrounding countryside has not worked. I cannot see any constitutional relationship that will be acceptable to the Port of Aden and to the hinterland which has a chance of being introduced within the next eight months.
The other factor is that the military establishment there will be far too large for the civil Government. There will be a federal army of 10 battalions. They exist today, although some are still being trained up. We are paying a sizable amount of the budget necessary for that force. By itself, the federal army is taking the equivalent of the entire budget of the city of Aden. What happens in the years ahead? Suppose there is a clash of interests between the armed forces and the civil Government. In the Middle East it is not the case of a defence review followed by a demobilisation of the armed forces; it is the civil Government which is demobilised and the Federal army and armed forces taking over. We are faced with a situation in which the armed forces of the Federation are bound to take over responsibility for the government in a very short time.
The chances of democracy ever being born in the Southern Arabia that we plan to leave are absolutely nil. Despite the burden of the swollen military establishment that we are leaving behind, we are also leaving behind a Southern Arabia which is effectively defenceless. I agree that Nasser's army will not move swiftly down from the Southern Yemen to Aden, but his hand will be forced. Many in Aden who look to Nasser for protection will call for help under pressure and Nasser will have to do something.
I do not believe that the Egyptian army has the will or the skill to fight its way south to Aden through the mountains. He will probably follow the same policy as in the Yemen, using his air force to dominate those parts of the Federal army and the tribes which stand against him. His air force has had great practice in this. Many hon. Members on this side have referred to the many bombing attacks on defenceless villages by the Egyptian air force in the Yemen and in


Saudi Arabia. In the past, they have invaded the air space of South Arabia itself.
What are we leaving to defend South Arabia against this main threat? On the one hand, there is the Egyptian air force with MIG 17s and MIG 21s, and much combat experience. We are leaving a force of which the backbone will be eight jet provost trainers, which can be used in a fighter-ground attack role, with half a dozen helicopters, half a dozen Dakotas and some communication planes. To fly them there will be a number of outsiders from Air Work and one trained Adeni pilot. Therefore, in effect, the Federation will be undefended in the air. Yet it is from there that the main threat from Nasser, if he wants to make a military move, will come.
In the hope of avoiding bloodshed, we are pinning our hope on the United Nations Mission. Many people have rightly cited the success of the United Nations force in Cyprus, but the position in Aden is much more complicated. In Cyprus, there are two distinct ethnic groups and the only real directive which that force had to be given was to stop them shooting each other.
In the Federation, it is extremely difficult to know who is on whose side, even for some of the people directly concerned. How a United Nations force will be able to maintain law and order, and whose law and order it will maintain, is a matter of considerable doubt. Having seen the composition of the mission, I am sure that any instructions it gives to any military force will be both imprecise and anti-Federalist. One must assume that its findings will be almost entirely unhelpful.
There is one Afghan, a Venezuelan and one diplomat from Mali. At no time in recent years has the Afghan delegation in the U.N. budged from the view of the more extreme wing of the African Group. Our United Nations relations with Venezuela have been badly soured by the Gibraltar dispute, in which they consistently deployed the Spanish case and have had their arguments consistently torn to shreds by the British delegation. It is unlikely that, at the moment, they are feeling particularly friendly to us.
Then, there is Mr. Keita from Mali, which, of all African nations at the U.N.,

has been the most consistently hostile to this country. Mr. Keita has played a prominent part in seeing that Mali has followed this extreme rôle. The Foreign Office tried to mollify themselves and some of those in South Arabia by pointing out that Mr. Keita cannot speak English or Arabic and therefore will not be able to communicate with the local population very much and therefore cannot influence the delegation's report. This is a vain hope. I fear that Mr. Keita will be handed a draft of the delegation's report when he visits Cairo and that this report, far from helping the situation, will make it even worse.
What should we do? We should complete the process, which I am glad that the Government have begun, of handing over responsibility for law and order in Aden to the Federal forces. I do not see why the lives of British soldiers should be unnecessarily jeopardised on internal security patrols and duties in stopping the bomb throwing. We should also leave a squadron or two of fighters at Khormaksar airfield to protect the air space. Few soldiers would be needed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) mentioned a battalion, which would certainly be ample. We should attempt to dismantle the powerful radar installations at Khormaksar.
I find it difficult to understand this Government's overall motivation. They say that they are getting out of Aden primarily on economic grounds, yet the increased subsidies and the new building and redeployment in the Persian Gulf means that it is unlikely that the overall saving will be much more than £6 million a year. Yet we know that there will be conflict and bloodshed in this area. At the same time, we are spending more than £600 million on heavy weapons like the F111, the Chieftain tank and the hunter-killer submarines which have a function only in the sort of war which the Government say will never take place.
I do not understand the point of spending vast sums on heavy weapons for a war which never will be fought, when, on economic grounds, the Government are leaving South Arabia, on which we are dependent for our oil supplies. Therefore, even in the context of the Government's Defence Review, their policy in Aden is absolutely mad.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: I am one of those who argued the proposition in the debate on defence about a week ago that any sudden withdrawal from any area could cause an increase in tension which, in the long run, could cause more trouble and expense than the withdrawal itself. One must, therefore, look at any withdrawal and consider its overall strategic influence. However, I do not believe that one can apply this argument to Aden and South Arabia.
We must face the fact that there is, as a result of Britain's withdrawal from this territory, likely to be a battle for the vacuum that is created. In this case the test of Her Majesty's Government's statesmanship is timing, although this is bound to be a matter of opinion. I believe that their timing is right.
If one tried to argue that a British presence in South Arabia could be indefinitely sustained, then the troubles which our forces are experiencing in the form of terrorism would be likely to increase. It is, therefore, a question of timing, and I support the Government in having laid down a date which, I understand, is broadly accepted by most people. They are also right not to offer to give military assistance beyond the date of independence. If such an offer were made the arguments for withdrawal would be weakened, for if we were to continue to have a military presence after withdrawal the commitment would still be there and it would be a more difficult one to defend. Again, therefore, the Government are right in accepting the need to lay down clearly to the Adenese leaders and South Arabia the fact that Her Majesty's Government intend militarily to withdraw.
This raises the question of what guarantees we could offer to the new State. We all have in mind the situation created in the Belgian Congo, and nobody wants a recreation of that. It is to this question, therefore, that we must direct our attention. I am prepared to argue—as is my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard)—that either the new State makes arrangements locally with States which share the same sort of view in terms of policy, or the international community gives some guarantee.
The present United Nations body which has arrived here and will shortly be going to that part of the world may be able to

come back with some recommendations which will enable the U.N. to be involved. I admit that I am not too hopeful of this, partly because the Commission, on behalf of the U.N., is a body which will report to the Committee of 24—and that is the weakness of it—and partly because the Committee of 24 is one of the least moderate bodies of the U.N. There is a great deal of pressure from Egypt and other countries to ensure that the Committee will not allow the Commission to go forward with any constructive proposals. It seems, therefore, that what is, in effect, a Committee of 24 presence is not the best U.N. presence we could wish for.
If U Thant had been intervening in the situation we would be talking in terms of a U.N. operation very much like that of Cyprus and previous U.N. peacekeeping operations, but in this case one must be concerned about the atmosphere in the Committee of 24. That being so, we must not be too disappointed if the Commission does not come up with constructive proposals.
This does not mean that the U.N. cannot be involved, and I believe that it will become increasingly involved because the situation in this part of the world is deteriorating. There is no doubt that when the Commission arrives in Aden the terrorists will step up their pressure. Once that happens, they are likely to keep pressure up for some time. Increasingly the international community will become involved, and I hope that when it does the matter will then be out of the hands of the Committee of 24 and into the hands of the U.N. proper.
We must realise, however, that it is on Colonel Nassser that events will largely depend. I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that it is useful to keep in contact with Colonel Nasser, even if it means at present that there can be nothing further than an exchange of letters. We should not fall into the error of believing that if one attacks or keeps up the pressure on Colonel Nasser one will necessarily improve the climate.
We must face the fact that a balance of power will be disturbed in this area. Indeed, as it has been disturbed for the last 10 years or so. We must also accept that it is an extremely dangerous area and that Colonel Nasser is naturally making


a bid for that balance of power and will go on doing so. Nevertheless, I support the decision of my right hon. Friend to make it clear to the Adenese leaders and South Arabia that Britain cannot go on underpinning the balance of power in the Middle East and that either local arrangements must be made or, better still, arrangements made through the U.N. so that the new State, when it is born, can exist and go on running its own independence very much like the other nations which we have seen being born in the last 20 years.
In spite of the bad news that there are grounds for believing that there may be trouble if we persist with our policy, are not deterred by the difficulties and try to encourage the United Nations, I still believe that the future is brighter than some hon. Members have tended to paint it.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT, SCOTLAND

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I wish in this debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill to raise the question of transport in Scotland, particularly railway transport. Last week the Minister of Transport made a statement and issued a map concerning our railways, and I wish to comment on the possible effects of that on Scotland.
I am in agreement with the right hon. Lady in trying to stabilise the position so that we have a basic plan on which to work. I am glad that she has issued a White Paper, because that will be of help to the morale of the railwaymen who have suffered grievous uncertainty in recent years about their future. They are a loyal body of people, very efficient and polite, and I wish them well.
I have always accepted that certain lines which may not be economic must be retained for defence or social reasons or because of geography and climate. These lines may require a subsidy and I am prepared to agree to one being paid. Such subsidies may, in the end, be cheaper than our trying to maintain or build all-weather roads. I therefore welcome the right hon. Lady's intention to keep open the line from Inverness to Wick and the line from Aberdeen to

Inverness. However, there my congratulations must end.
In general, the Government have made a serious error in considering the railways of Scotland somewhat in isolation and not within the context of a complete transport system. It is not sensible to issue a plan and a map indicating that large sections of railway network are to be cut out completely without saying what is being put in their place. In this connection, we must remember that the Government want to reduce their finances for road building in Scotland from next year by £1 million a year or more. It seems that the Scottish transport system has a somewhat grim future.
I also regret that the Minister's statement did not display any thoughts on how she had reached her conclusions. We are not given any facts or figures about costs on the various routes, and those are essential if we are to make a proper decision on what should take place.
With respect to certain closures—that, for instance, of the stretch between Ding-wall and the Kyle of Lochalsh—climate should be taken into consideration because alternate routes are not very good. That railway also gives a splendid route across the northern part of Scotland. Has consideration been extended to the tourist traffic that might be assisted by the running of sleeper trains for motorists, with their cars as far as the Kyle of Lochalsh?
I also deplore the closing of the triangles Banff, Keith and Elgin and Keith-Dufftown-Elgin. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) will want to say something about this, but I shall confine myself to saying that these are not areas into which it is very easy to bring new development and industries. It will become even more difficult to do so if we get rid of one set of communications. That proposal should be re-examined.
Roughly the same arguments apply to the possible closure of the Carlisle-Edinburgh route via Galashiels and the Border towns. I travelled this route myself recently, and I am quite certain that it is not expensive either to maintain or to improve. It serves an area having many efficient industries, and provides a quick route to Liverpool and to other ports for the exports of our textiles from


that area, and other goods. As the House will know, the Borders are subject to severe winters, when roads are closed by ice and snow, but this railway is very seldom closed. The only bad part is at Riccarton Junction, so it is something of a lifeline. I should like to know how much the line is losing, if it is losing anything at all, and what would be the cost of making and maintaining all-weather roads in the future. We must have these figures before we can make proper decisions.
It seems to me to be very strange that while the Government desire and allegedly intend to get industrial expansion in the Borders—and we on this side agree with that aim—they should at the same time be proposing to extinguish one certain and efficient means of communication. This is Alice-in-Wonder-land planning, and I urge the Secretary of State for Scotland to have the proposal re-examined. Opposition to the closures comes from many quarters; not only from industrialists but from local authorities and individuals. I must also point out that this is a trunk route; not a branch line.
There is also the question of the railways in and around Edinburgh. The Chairman of the Railways Board was recently reported in the Scotsman as saying that the line between Newcastle and Edinburgh would be reduced to single track. Is that report correct? There is plenty of traffic coming from the south of Edinburgh and southbound from the north, and there may well be an increase of rail traffic when all the developments in central Scotland are completed. It would therefore be madness to throw away or reduce the present railway facilities.
We suffer from immense traffic problems in Edinburgh, and they are becoming continually worse. The Corporation has made many suggestions about what to do. It has been promised assistance by the Scottish Office, but we never hear anything. We are not given any information. It is not long since practically all the suburban lines were shut, certainly contrary to our opinion and wishes and efforts, and those of my Unionist colleagues in the House. Now another way, going from Corstorphine to Waverley, is threatened, and that at a time when lorry, motor and tourist traffic is increasing.

Yet round the periphery of the city there are excellent stations and lines, and the terminals, being right in the centre of the city, could not be better placed.
It seems very odd to me that when places like Toronto and London and cities in America are bringing back lines, or even building additional lines, we in Edinburgh should be having to get rid of these assets, and I must protest about it. Why is there such lack of imagination? With a little effort, the city could have a first-class suburban system right round it and into the centre. The Minister talked of local lines perhaps being paid for out of the rates. I do not condemn this idea out of hand—I am quite prepared to look at it—but it needs great thought and examination.
I am asking for two things tonight. I ask, first, that no more lines in and around Edinburgh be closed, and that those that are already closed be not destroyed or taken up. We may well need them again. I ask, secondly, that the railways do not act in isolation. Will the Minister, the Edinburgh Corporation, and the Secretary of State for Scotland—whom I am glad to see present—and other interested parties please make a thorough survey? Let us not throw away assets, but avoid mistakes which will be much regretted by future generations. I am quite aware that to bring back closed lines will need amending legislation, but that is a small matter. Such a small piece of amending legislation would certainly not be opposed from this side.
I therefore ask that railway transport in Scotland, and particularly in and around Edinburgh, be re-examined, as a better decision will go a long way to solving the city's traffic problems.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel: It is perhaps a good thing that the House should have an opportunity to talk about railway closures and the Scottish position, even though we had a debate on the White Paper on Transport only a short time ago. But it is rather an audacious enterprise for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) and his colleagues to initiate it. All the ills of which they complain emanate directly from the 1962 Transport Act, for which they all voted.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: I abstained.

Mr. Manuel: I am delighted to know that I have a fellow abstainer on the other side of the House. I do not think the Opposition Front Bench could claim that privilege. For many long weeks in Committee on the Bill, with the help of my colleagues, I tried to get Amendments made to it, but we were unsuccessful. Eventually, the Guillotine was used to get the 1962 Act through, with all the brutalities of line closures.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): I am in some difficulty here. I am interested in the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison). What did he abstain from? Did he abstain from voting on the 1962 Bill?

Mr. Clark Hutchison: I was not satisfied with the Minister's reply, particularly about Edinburgh suburban railways and my recollection is that I did abstain.

Mr. Manuel: I willingly accept the sincerity of the hon. Member about his abstention on that occasion, but we are not dealing only with the hon. Member. He is the mouthpiece tonight, but his colleagues have to accept the onus of voting for the 1962 Bill which is now the Act and from which the brutalities of the Beeching system emanate.
Much as we may regret that certain lines may be closed, we have the definite assurance of the Minister of Transport and the new transport basic network plan, by which 3,000 more miles of railway are to be kept open than would have been under the Beeching policy. We are grateful for that. Those of us who with some care went into the 1962 Act know that we would have had nothing North of Perth if the Beeching policy had been put into operation. The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) is nodding, but he was not in the House then. I want to give him some education about it. Some of us, by a deputation, caused the Minister at that time to hold things back.
I can understand the complaint by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South about transport users' consultative committees. He asked what the basic costs of operating services were on lines which he mentioned. He wants to know the financial

position and the annual loss, but these are the sort of things for which we asked in Committee on the 1962 Bill and we were refused the information.
I have been to several public hearings by transport users' consultative committees and find that one is immediately ruled out of order from the chair when these matters are raised. Some of us have had a little success and have managed to work in odd patterns so as to gel an appreciation of the picture, but the transport users' consultative committees, by virtue of the Act, do not pay any regard to that and the chairman of a committee rules such questions out of order. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have had this experience.
We all hope to get a new Bill through at the latest by early next year. Then, by the will of the House and common consent, we should get a broader outline of evidence which will be allowable at public hearings by transport users' consultative committees. There is already a wider area which can be considered before the final decision is arrived at and submitted to the Minister. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Tom Fraser) was Minister of Transport he made it clear that regional economic councils had to be consulted and the Secretary of State for Scotland had to be brought into discussions affecting Scotland before a definite decision was come to by the Minister. These contingencies surround the position before the decision is made by the Minister.
The Minister is on record as saying that the social obligations and social content of particular lines will be given very full consideration. In the debate on transport, my right hon. Friend made it clear that although certain lines would not be in the basic network that did not mean that automatically they would be closed. They still have to be considered by the transport users' consultative committees, regional economic councils and the Secretary of State for Scotland before a final decision is taken.

Mr. John Brewis: I am sure that the hon. Member would like to be fair. Will he agree that this is exactly the position under the Beeching plan? The matter had to go through the T.U.C.C.s. Many lines were reprieved long before the right hon. Lady became Minister.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member is quite wrong because the basic network is now 3,000 miles more. There is no dubiety about that. When we had discussions and debates about lines in the Highlands, Dr. Beeching publicly said, "This is not for me to decide. If the Government want to carry them all, good and well." But they never took any decision on the social content of any particular line when hon. Members opposite were holding the reins of government.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn)rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Manuel: Who is shouting, "Give way"?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not certain to whom the hon. Member for South Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) has given way. Mr. Campbell.

Mr. G. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), who has given way. I was a member of the Government at the time. The hon. Member will remember two very important lines north of Inverness, to Wick and to Kyle of Lochalsh, which the Government decided should stay for social and other reasons. Please do not forget that.

Mr. Manuel: I recognise that, but the hon. Member is the pillar of the 1962 Transport Act which brought the whole thing about. He cannot get away from the vote which he cast in favour of it. If we had some help from him in keeping Highland lines open, let him not claim too much credit for himself, because we were leading the battle at that time.

Mr. G. Campbell: But one of these lines is now to go.

Mr. Speaker: If an hon. Member intervenes, even though he is a Scottish hon. Member, he must do it in a Parliamentary way.

Mr. Manuel: ; I am grateful to you for protecting me, Mr. Speaker from the anger opposite. Usually, the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) is very good-tempered. I am rather surprised that he is showing a little venom.

Mr. G. Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. Because I thought that he might not wish to give way so soon I made that comment. Sometimes he makes remarks from a sedentary position and I thought that he would understand. One of the reasons why we feel so strongly about this is that the Kyle of Lochalsh line is now on the list of those which are to go. The new document which came out last Wednesday shows that one of these two lines, which we decided should be retained, is now due to go.

Mr. John Morris: May I remind my hon. Friend and the House that the decision in regard to the Kyle of Lochalsh was not a definite one. The right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) said when he gave his refusal on 16th April, 1964, that it was an interim decision, but he considered that the ultimate future of the line should be reconsidered when some progress had been made with road improvements.

Mr. Manuel: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has made that point. We remember the decision. We remember the great debate there was about the bad road. It was said that when this had been put right there would be no impediment to the line's being closed. I hope that there will be no impediment. This stretch of line is vitally important and I hope that it will be kept open.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Manuel: Mr. Speaker, I shall soon have given way to all the Scottish Tory Members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not appeal to me for help. He himself decides whether to give way or not.

Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman has graciously decided to give way. Is the Kyle of Lochalsh line down for survival or decease in the White Paper?

Mr. Manuel: The White Paper does not mention the Kyle of Lochalsh line. The hon. Gentleman will need to read it again. Mr. Speaker, I was not asking you for your protection. I feel quite capable of taking on any six hon. Members opposite at any one time.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must give the hon. Gentleman my protection now.

Mr. Manuel: I have nearly finished.
I base my case on the fact that hon. Members opposite gave strong support and cast votes for the 1962 Act. All our troubles emanate from that. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South is not here. He asked that certain lines in and around Edinburgh and other places be not destroyed—in other words, that they be uplifted. He should know that the Minister of Transport has already said that the basic network will be kept in being in case of industrial development, industrial location or rehousing of municipal tenants, which could alter the situation and there could again be representations from the Regional Economic Council to the effect that a certain railway line should be reopened.
The Opposition are on a very sticky wicket. The Labour Government intend to keep 3,000 more railways miles in being than the Tory Government did. Tory Members have a great deal of cheek in making this criticism of the Government tonight.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I intervene largely to obtain some elucidation from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on the statement which the Minister of Transport made last Wednesday on the British Railways Network for Development map and the Press conference given jointly by the Minister of Transport and the Chairman of the British Railways Board. All the things I have mentioned do little to remove the uncertainty from the minds of the general public and amongst local authorities. Indeed, there is even more uncertainty amongst local authorities than there was before. This is due largely to the passages in the Minister's statement and at her Press conference when she was very vague about the part that local authorities would be likely to be play in the keeping open of lines.
I admit that the Minister said that consultations would take place in the future, but it is very difficult for local authorities to have any idea of how to plan their budgeting, their road programmes, and other matters, unless they have pretty good basic material to work

on. I would go so far as to say that the whole position is clouded in obscurity.
I wish to refer to two railway lines in my constituency which are under suspended sentence. One line is that in the North, the line from Cairnie Junction via Portsoy, Cullen, Portknockie, Findochty, Buckie, Portgordon and thence to Elgin. The other line is in the South from Keith Junction to Duff town and Craigiellachie and thence to Elgin. According to the British Railways Board, both lines are scheduled for closure.
There have been no fewer than two appeals to the Transport Users' Consultative Committee; there have been two hearings in Elgin, where evidence has been taken. The Committee has reported to the Minister that it sees no grounds of hardship which would justify the lines being kept open.
When the decision was made known by the T.U.C.C, I at once appealed to the Minister. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to see me. I put various points to him. Therefore, the position is fairly well documented. These two lines are now under a sort of suspended sentence.
The foreword to the map states:
The Board will proceed with this review "—
that is the review of the closure of lines—
as quickly as possible and when they decide to publish a proposal will not now need to seek the Minister's agreement to publication in each case.
Two questions immediately arise. First, is the Minister's sanction against closures completely withdrawn? Do notices of intention of closure already published stand as part of policy? Secondly—I think that this is vitally important as regards Scotland—is it to be understood from these statements that the Secretary of State for Scotland's sanction no longer obtains in any instance?
Paragraph 299 of "The Scottish Economy 1965 to 1970; a Plan for Expansion"—Cmnd. 2864—states:
The new arrangements under which all passenger closure proposals are referred to the Scottish Economic Planning Council for their advice before a ministerial decision is taken, and the participation of the Ministry of Transport, along with a Railways Board representative, in all the work of the Scottish Economic


Planning Board, will ensure for the future that railway planning and the wider issues of economic planning for Scotland march hand in hand".
The statements in this foreword contradict the Scottish plan for economic expansion.
The foreword also says that lines such as those in my constituency which I have mentioned
on present evidence are not proposed for inclusion in the basic network.
That is understandable.
This does not mean that a decision has been taken to close them.
If it does not mean that, what on earth does it mean? According to the proposals published in the spring of 1966, which, as far as I know, have never been withdrawn, the Railways Board is to close these lines. Later in the statement we read:
When a closure proposal has. been published advice will as now be obtained … from the Transport Users Consultative Committees on hardship "—
I repeat that that has already been obtained in the case of the Banff lines which I indicated earlier—
and from the Regional Economic Planning Councils on planning implications in the area.
My information is that the North-East of Scotland Planning Consultative group has already recommended against closure to the Scottish Economic Planning Council, of which the Secretary of State is Chairman. If that is so, why do the lines on the map appear as what I think are termed grey lines? It seems to me absolute nonsense.
It is true that Professor Gaskin of Aberdeen University has been asked to undertake a further planning study of the north-east of Scotland. It may well be that the reasons for the delay are largely due to the Government waiting for his report. We should be told whether that is so or not. In any event, the House and the people of Banffshire need a great deal more information about the Minister's intention.
One of the main reasons why Scottish nationalists, and probably Welsh nationalists, have been surging forward recently is that they have the feeling that the man, or woman, in Whitehall knows best and that, being on the periphery, their feelings are neglected and

are not taken into account. In this context, the operative feeling is one of remoteness in every sense, and no more is that true than in the case of railway closures.
I challenge the Minister of Transport to make a tour of the remoter areas and to see what we have to put up with in very bad winters. It is all very well to sit in London and to read Press reports and see photographs on television. I would give the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary a hearty welcome to my constituency. Admittedly at this time of year they would have to use a great deal of imagination because the countryside is beginning to perk up. It is not an uncommon occurrence to have a very hard winter in my part of the world.
The line in Upper Banffshire via Duff-town to Craigellachie is literally the lifeline of that part of the world in winter. Although generally the volume of passenger traffic on this line is small, there are days when it is fairly heavy. It is particularly heavy on Mondays and Fridays, because landladies in Aberdeen are not very keen to keep university students over the weekend. They turf them out and they have to get home. In the winter it would be completely impossible for students to reach home and get back to university on Mondays without the railway.
Another matter which I should like to mention concerns stretcher cases. As a result of the socialisation of hospital services and specialist treatment in Aberdeen, it is often necessary to send stretcher cases by road. What happens if the railways are withdrawn? Does the Minister visualise laying on a special helicopter service for these people? There are other matters to be considered, for instance, milk supplies and the production at the right time and in the right place of vital agricultural implements, spares and the like.
If the line to which I refer in Upper Banffshire is closed the area will be completely cut off, because bus services as they exist and as they are proposed are totally inadequate to replace the railways. The roads are not suitable to carry increased bus traffic, and nor are they capable of taking this traffic in bad weather.
There is a move afoot to centralise secondary education in Keith. This is a


decision which, quite rightly, is bitterly resented and opposed by the residents in Upper Banffshire. If the railways close, a large fleet of buses will be necessary to transport the children to school. About 200 or 300 children are involved. But the buses would be needed and operated only in the mornings and evenings on four or five days a week. The capital outlay and the maintenance charges would be considerable and out of all proportion, whereas the small number of buses which largely exist already could be used to transport the children. It makes nonsense of an integrated policy if this sort of thing continues.
This is equally true of the coastline. Here the tourist industry will be very adversely affected. This is a growing industry on a very beautiful coastline in Banffshire. It is a already hard hit by the Selective Employment Tax, and we do not want to hit it harder by withdrawing the railways. Many landladies have told me that they are very apprehensive about their trade if the railway line closes. I have had personally not a few contacts with industrialists with a view to getting them to set up their factories in the Banffshire coastal area. The first question which they ask almost invariably when they realise the remoteness of the area is: What is the railway position? All that I can tell them is that the railway is under suspended sentence.
I remind the Government that there is a vast differential in the wage rates between Scotland, particularly the northeast of Scotland, and the rest of the United Kingdom. As a result, far fewer people are able to own motor cars than in other parts of the country. We must have a halt to depoplation, and railway closures will certainly not help to arrest it. They can only accentuate the problems.
We are having difficulty with farm labour. It probably sounds archaic nonsense for me to say that farm labour depends on the retention of railway lines, but in fact it is not nonsense. A great number of people in that part of the world depends on the railways lines to get from place to place, because the bus services are inadequate and the plans that have been published for augmentation if the lines are closed are equally inadequate.
I very much hope that the Government will give careful attention to the problems. I renew my invitation to the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend. I should be delighted to show them the area and what we have to put up with.

8.01 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I feel a certain sympathy with the railways and my right hon. Friend the Minister in this type of debate, because there seems to be a certain ritual in that the Government of the day tries to get the railway system into a resonable financial situation and the Opposition of the day complain about the closures more or less willy-nilly. In this situation we should try for a while to leave the railways alone with their new remit to find out how the system will work and how the actual costing is going.
One things that alarms me when I talk to British Railways management is the frequency with which its remit has been changed in recent years, so that it does not really know how to plan. It wonders what the result of the next General Election will be, who will come to power, who will be put in charge of it and under what new scheme. It is difficult to decide what would be the view of hon. Members opposite if they came to power. It is fair to doubt that in view of their record when they were the Government and imposed the Beeching Plan on the railways while now they reverse their position and criticise the reduction in the plan or railway mileages due to be closed.
One must try to be a bit more realistic and use a longer term in which to consider the situation, working out the costings and deciding precisely how the railways will work their new system, what will be the relationship with the roads, with regional planning and so on. I am not clear on what basis the extra 3,000 miles has been reinstated in the recent White Paper, because as far as I can see it has not been done purely on a cost basis; in fact, the lines have not been costed one by one. They seem to have been reinstated on a mixture of grounds—that they might pay, for hardship reasons or for economic planning and development reasons. All three of those arguments seem to me to be perfectly respectable. I should like there to be time for the situation to develop, so


that we know which of the three criteria applies in each case, or whether none of the criteria are satisfied.
It is therefore reasonable for the Government and British Railways to state definitely that certain lines will stay, that certain lines will be for freight only and that they have not made up their minds about others. I would make a small plea that they do not make up their minds about those lines in too much of a hurry. Dr. Beeching estimably introduced for the first time the idea of cost accounting into the railways, where I was horrified that it was not done before. But he did not fully appreciate the effect on a necessary railway line or a worthwhile line of closing ancillary feeder services which might by themselves be uneconomic. If one closes sufficient ancillary feeder services one may make the main line uneconomic as well, and thus edge it into the list of lines due to be closed on purely economic grounds.

Mr. Manuel: Would my hon. Friend agree that Dr. Beeching had another weakness, in so far as his cost analysis dealt only with the role of railways and not with other forms of transport, and that that cannot be done in isolation in obtaining a real transport system?

Mr. Mackintosh: I accept my hon. Friend's point, but that was not Dr. Beeching's remit. He was asked simply to consider the railways. It may have been a fault that he was not asked to consider total transport policy by the Government of the day, but I do not lay that particularly at his door.
The "grey" lines in the recent White Paper which are under suspended consideration should not be closed or reviewed too hurriedly. I should particularly like to see the House encourage British Railways not to decide too rapidly on these lines but rather ask the contrary question: "How can we make the lines pay and see them provide a service?" I have been rather disappointed in this matter by the leadership of British Railways in the Scottish Region. It seems to me that it has too often taken its remit to be a quick attempt to close a line which alternative methods of manning and running could make economic.
I had the curious situation of railwaymen in my constituency approaching me

with detailed schedules and briefing me on how commuter services into Edinburgh could be run. I had to take their briefs and plans to the headquarters of British Railways and try to convince the management with detailed schedules and maps that in the case of East Linton and East Fortune they had the diesel set doing nothing between "A" and "B" time, the track is maintained as a main line and a two-way service into Edinburgh could work. They could run a small commuter service in the area into Edinburgh which might make only £20 or £30 profit a month but would keep up the Railways' public image, maintain enthusiasm for the railway and show that the management is concerned to make money, even if it was at a small or low level.
I was impressed recently to read of a "bus stop" diesel service in East Anglia making money stopping at unmanned halts, with the driver taking the fares. That is the type of service which we could use on the Drem to North Berwick line and for a stopping service on the main line to Dunbar. These services would perform a useful function, because it will be difficult to get a dual carriageway Al road till there is a bypass at Musselburgh and at Tranent and the former cannot be built until we get a ring road established for Edinburgh.
I spent a very valuable two hours last Friday talking this over with an executive of British Railways, who has agreed to look at the East Linton service and try out my proposals because he had to admit at the end of two hours discussion that it could not see how money could be lost on it. It was amazing that I should have to explain that to them as a result of information from railwaymen in my constituency and I am grateful to British Railways for considering it.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I am very interested in what the hon. Member says about trying to make the railways profitable. Does he think that the fact that it is a nationalised industry may have something to do with it?

Mr. Mackintosh: Nothing whatever. It may have something to do with the way that the railways political remit has been altered too frequently in recent


years to let them settle on a proper commercial policy. Also the historic problems of the railways go far back in management attitudes and behaviour. It is very bad luck on the railways in a sense that their management and approach is in many ways still rather Victorian.
I see no reason why it should be left to the airlines to have attractive lounges and air hostesses, while British Railways waiting rooms are draughty horrors and one's ticket is clipped time and again and never by a rail hostess! There is no reason why the railways should not compete with their fast inter-city trains, their liner trains and, I believe, with commuter facilities, provided they adopt modern methods and a proper level of service and comfort.
The Government and Opposition should not chivvy the railways too much in the next two or three years. The management should have time to stabilise the present system, to see how it works, to apply new techniques in commuter, inter-city and liner trains. The less we push British Rail about in the next year or two the better.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I find myself in certain sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) when he talked about the need not to chivvy the railways around. That is a valid point.
All the remarks made until now have concentrated on rail transport, but we are also discussing transport generally in the debate, which we are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) for having initiated.
I want to say a word first about the road position. It may be recalled that in the Scottish Plan of honoured memory it was stated that the Government had decided to increase the programme of road expenditure for Scotland from £120 million over the five year period 1965-70 to £137 million. This sounded better than it was, because the Government had to explain that it was merely to allow for increased costs.
However, it is interesting to see what has happened more recently. One sees

from the latest batch of Civil Estimates that expenditure on roads in England goes up by more than £23 million but expenditure on roads in Scotland goes down by more than £1 million. One wonders what the Secretary of State for Scotland was doing when that was arranged—with the famous voice that is supposed to speak up for Scotland—though I understand that he prefers to be called "office boy". What was he doing when this example of Government priorities was being laid down?

Mr. MacArthur: Turning down N.A.L.G.O.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I have no doubt that, as my hon. Friend suggests, the right hon. Gentleman was busy turning down N.A.L.G.O. However, that perhaps goes rather wide of the subject that we are discussing.
We should like information from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary about the way in which that change in the Estimates occurred. How is it that Scotland is once more being discriminated against in the road programme?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): If the hon. Gentleman is comparing the Estimates for last year with the Estimates for this year, he is not comparing like with like.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: We ought to have a clear explanation. The Secretary of State may have noticed the comment of the A.A. Regional Controller for Scotland last weekend. He said that the cut-back in spending on Scottish roads was nothing short of a scandal. I hope that before we conclude the debate we shall be given some explanation of these figures.

Mr. Ross: It is a great pity that hon. Members who pride themselves on following what is happening should not be able to notice that the Estimates for this year are not the same in form as those for last year. If hon. Gentlemen opposite had been following the legislation that has been passing through the Scottish Committee and the House they would have appreciated that a considerable part of last year's Estimate has now been transferred to the rate support grant. The hon. Gentleman ought not to jump to conclusions and mislead people like


those of the A.A. and the rest in that respect. We are not spending less on roads; we shall be spending more on them.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In that case we ought to have the figures. I recognise that the new system of rate support grant has introduced a different method of financing expenditure on roads, but if the Secretary of State is saying that this accounts for the whole of the change, then it ought to be explained to the people in Scotland, to whom it has not so far been explained.
I turn to a matter of much more direct concern to my constituency—rail transport. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) is apparently still in the fortunate position of awaiting a decision about the lines in his constituency. For us in Angus the axe has already fallen. We have heard a certain amount tonight about the new procedures which the Government have introduced. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) said that there was now a procedure for consulting the regional economic planning councils. I should like to tell him just how that occurred in the case of the Strathmore line in my constituency. The decision to close it and withdraw the passenger service was announced a week before the regional economic planning council met for the first time. That was how it was consulted about this closure proposal.
I want to follow the question through a little. We have heard a great deal about the new techniques that the Government have introduced and the way in which, unlike their predecessors, they have safeguarded social interests in the areas served by the railways. I sometimes wonder where people have been living when they talk like that; it is certainly not in the area around Angus which is served by the Strathmore line.
This case is an interesting textbook example of how the new procedures work. In January last year the transport users consultative committee considered the proposal for the withdrawal of the passenger service across the Valley of Strathmore through Forfar to the main centre that it serves in my constituency. The consultative committee eventually decided and recommended that the closure should not be proceeded with because it would

create cumulatively severe hardship. So there was a pause. No doubt the new techniques of consultation, though not with the regional economic planning committee, were taking place, and, finally in November last year the Minister decided that, notwithstanding the advice of the consultative committee, the closure should go ahead.

Mr. Manuel: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to misquote me. While I indicated clearly that the regional economic planning councils would be consulted by my right hon. Friend, I hope I did not indicate that that was the major improvement that we put forward in the White Paper. The major improvement is the new Transport Act that is necessary in order to remodel the whole transport users consultative committee procedure in order to get a clear picture why a line is being closed.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I do not think I was misquoting the hon. Gentleman. I did not suggest that he had said that the consultation with the regional economic planning councils was the major improvement, but he suggested that as an improvement. I am merely saying how in an instance which is particularly and inevitably well known to me the procedure has worked out in practice.
However, the decision was taken, and the regional economic planning council was not there to be consulted because its first meeting was not until a week later. It may be that this was a convenient coincidence, but that was how it was.
What has happened since? This is so much water under the bridge, though that is perhaps a somewhat unfortunate metaphor to use in the circumstances. At any rate, the decision was taken by the Minister. I recognise, and my constituents recognise, that such are the ways of Ministers—I do not suggest that this is unique to the present Government—that once a decision of this kind has been taken it is unlikely to be reversed.
But under the provisions of the much-maligned 1962 Act a clear obligation is placed upon the Minister to satisfy himself or herself that adequate alternative public service transport is available before a rail service is withdrawn. An hon. Member opposite complained about some of my hon. Friends voting for the Transport Act, 1962. I was not in the


House then as he was quick to point out. If I had been in the House, I should have voted for it. I believe that it is essential that a sense of commercial values should be reintroduced into the railways where they are so lacking precisely for the sort of reason to which the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian was referring—the decay in the state of the services that the railways are providing because they are divorced from commercial considerations. But the 1962 Act also provided that in every case of closure the decision should rest with the Minister, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Manuel: As a railwayman I know the general picture. Is the hon. Member saying that purely commercial economic values should be the deciding factor in whether the Highland lines are closed? If he is, then they will all be closed.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: No. I am saying precisely the opposite. I am saying that it was necessary that the commercial principle should be reintroduced but that it was essential, as the Act provided, that the Minister should retain the ultimate power of decision in order to protect those lines where overriding social considerations made it essential that closure should not take place.
Moreover, under the Act the Minister was required to satisfy himself that adequate alternative public service transport was provided. This is the crux of my concern tonight. The right hon. Lady decided in the case of the Strathmore line that adequate alternative public service transport would be provided by the addition of a few express bus services between Forfar and Perth, because in her wisdom she concluded that the good citizens of Forfar would use Perth and not Dundee as their railhead. I immediately suggested to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that for many travellers from Forfar, Dundee would be a better railhead than Perth, and I pointed out that when the transport users' consultative committee met very strong evidence was produced to the committee that an adequate bus service between Forfar and Dundee must take passengers direct to Tay Bridge station instead of depositing them, as at the moment, more than a quarter-of-a-mile from the station. The T.U.C.C.
Report has not been published, but it is my understanding that the T.U.C.C. emphasised this point very strongly in its Report.
When the Minister had reached her decision and had laid it down that all that was required was a bus service between Forfar and Perth, I immediately pointed out that it was essential that a bus service should be provided between Forfar and Dundee. There has been a chain of correspondence between myself and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary about this and other related matters in the last few months. Today I received what I can only take to be his ultimate reply, in which he said:
As you know, in giving her consent to the closure the Minister was satisfied that the introduction of revised bus services, including fast limited-stop buses, providing rail connections at Perth would substantially alleviate any hardship arising from closure and that any remaining hardship was not sufficient to justify the retention of the line ".
But hope is not totally abandoned, for he added,
If experience over a reasonable period of time should indicate that the alternative services need further strengthening in any direction, then the Minister would, of course, be willing to look into it again on the basis of factual evidence of need".
Thus, my constituents will have to trail through mud, rain and snow, day in and day out, through the streets of Dundee to Tay Bridge Station in order to satisfy the right hon. Lady that additional services are required. This is not good enough. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary may regard this as a laughing matter, but I assure him that my constituents do not.

Mr. John Morris: I do not know whether the hon. Member is failing in eyesight or hearing, but I was in no sense regarding this as a laughing matter. I gave my correspondence with him a great deal of consideration. If he were fair minded he would tell the House that he had from me an interim reply stating that I was not in a position to give a full reply but hoping that he would accept it from me, in all sincerity, that I wanted to give the matter further consideration. In order that he might raise the matter in this debate, I ensured that he received that reply before today.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I in no sense complained about the length of time which


the Joint Parliamentary Secretary took to answer my letters on the point. If he studies HANSARD he will find that that is so. I am complaining about the nature of the reply. If he says that he was not smiling, I withdraw my remarks, but it was certainly my impression that he was smiling and I can assure him that my constituents do not regard this as a laughing matter.
I believe that in handling this closure proposal the Government have shown scant regard for the principles embodied in the 1962 Act, quite apart from the additional procedures which they claim to have introduced. They have laid down conditions for alternative public service transport which I can only regard as scandalously inadequate. It may be that in other parts of the country people are prepared to take the diktat of the Minister of Transport as to which railhead they should regard as suitable when a rail service is withdrawn, but I can assure the hon. Member that the people in my constituency are not prepared to accept that diktat. It is clear to anybody with a rudimentary knowledge of the area that Dundee is for many intents and purposes a more satisfactory railhead than Perth, though both are essential.
We must insist that the Government look at this again and that they do not fob us off with the statement that they cannot help to overcome the Dundee Corporation's objections to the re-routing of the bus service via Tay Bridge station. That is an abdication of the Government's responsibilities under the 1962 Act. We want better than this, and we want it before the rail service is withdrawn.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I have been following the speech of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). As usual, he tries to have the best of both worlds. He starts by a favourable recognition of the importance of cost-effectiveness in planning and then proceeds to derogate from that principle throughout the rest of his speech.
If I try, during the course of this debate, to focus attention, temporarily at least, on the problems of Highland transport, it is because in the Highlands transportation is the skeleton on which the framework of industrial development must be built. The timeliness of this

debate is clear, and we are indebted to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) for raising it.
We are awaiting publication by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland of the Highland Transport Board's report. I hope that it will be possible to debate it, because its recommendations will be of considerable importance. To focus attention on the railways is both timely and welcome. The fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has now clearly recommended that 3,000 more miles of railway will be preserved than would have been preserved under the Beeching plan is an indication of the Government's concern for the development of the Highlands; and I must express my complete satisfaction that the future of the Inverness-Wick line has been put beyond doubt.
A valuable point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) about the modernisation of the railways and its efforts to attract business. During the last couple of years, there have been a number of disquieting indications of a readiness to abandon business by the railways, at least in the Highlands. I think, in particular, of the ending of the transport facilities for livestock for points north of Inverness. This is something that Scottish railways should look at again.
But, by and large, as transportation exists at present, the main arteries are, of course, the roads. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for clearing up the point, which has been too widely broadcast, which suggests that we are spending less in the coming year on roads in Scotland. It was a timely and much-needed intervention and I hope that it will be given the publicity it deserves.
There are, however, some problems arising from the new methods of financing roads, particularly in the Highlands. One to which I would draw attention is the number of very important roads hitherto classified as second-class roads which will not be eligible under the new rate support grant for subsidisation as principal roads. I hope that there will be some other method of taking over commitments which have existed under the local authority rolling programmes for subsidisation of these roads.
There is one such road in my constituency, which I give as an example. It is the Kinlochbervie-Rhiconich road. It is receiving £10,000 per annum under the rolling programme and it is vital to the fishing industry of Kinlochbervie, although it is classified as a second-class road. It seems that its grant may be threatened by the new system. If it is, I hope that the problem can be ironed out.
But the transportation of the future in the Highlands must be air transport. I welcome the indications of development in these services, for example, the increased services being offered by B.E.A. from the northern airports to the South, particularly from Inverness to London. It is becoming increasingly ludicrous to talk about the difficulties of communications as an obstacle to development when it is now possible to get from London to the north coast of Scotland in less than four hours.

Mr. Brewis: Does the hon. Gentleman see any future for internal communications in the Highlands by light aircraft?

Mr. Maclennan: I was coming to that.
In particular, I welcome the development in the northern islands of Orkney, where, this summer, Logan Air is, I believe, opening up a new internal service. This must be the line of ready communication in the future. But I suggest that it would be appropriate to initiate studies of the possible use to be made of such internal transportation without waiting for commercial initiative.
I understand that Logan Air, very properly and with considerable enterprise, showed initiative in the case of the northern Orkney Islands, but we shall wait for some time before the more remote parts of my constituency are likely to be so served if purely commercial considerations are to operate. The importance of connecting such places as the north-west of Sutherland with the main population centres cannot be underestimated.
I am not concerned wholly with social hardship, the difficulties of getting children to school on the East Coast and problems engendered by sickness and emergencies. To some extent, medical emergencies can be dealt with by means

of helicopter services. I am particularly concerned about possible industrial and other economic developments in those areas, because it is on transport that these depend.
During the last few weeks, our thoughts have been focused on this matter by the prospects of development in the Invergordon area. Whatever may be the outcome of the plans for its development, there is no doubt that it was the presence of a possible deep-water port at Invergordon which made it such an attractive prospect and a natural one for the Highland Development Board to look at seriously.
The possibility of establishing a petrochemical complex or, for that matter, any industry in that area would be enormously enhanced by the development of a deep-water port, and the same can be said of other parts of the Highlands. I would draw attention to the possibilities at Scrabster, on the north coast of Caithness, which, in some ways, in an even more attractive prospect than that of Invergordon and where deep water is reached much more quickly than at Invergordon.
The close connection between development and transport has been brought home forcibly to me by my exchanges with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology about the development of mineral resources in the north-west of Sutherland, where there are important magnesium and phosphate deposits. The question of their viable economic development appears at present to turn on a nice calculation of the costs of transportation. Here again, there is a possibility of a deep-water port being developed at Loch Eriboll on the North Coast. I hope that those discussions will be continued and that the Government will assist the development of these parts of my constituency.
I wish to draw attention to one further matter to do with air transport, and that is whether or not the present helicopter services for emergency medical cases are adequate. I have had exchanges with Ministers on the point, and there is no doubt that the procedures for obtaining the services of a helicopter are extremely cumbersome. It appears that helicopters can be obtained only when they are not required by the Services. It is clear that


fixed-wing aircraft are much more suitable for air transportation in the North.
I hope that the Government are giving consideration to the possibility of extending the airstrip facilities, not major airport facilities along the lines of Wick and Dalcross, but more along the lines of those which have been successfully developed in some of the remoter parts of New England in the United States, where there are airstrips manned by a minimal number of staff and aeroplanes can readily touch down, pick up the sick patient, and fly off again without the full apparatus of a modern airport.
For this purpose, it will be necessary to have quite different aeroplanes in service from those which are at present on the Highland routes. We should be giving serious consideration to the possibility of using aircraft such as the Grumman Goose, which can land on water. There are examples of this aircraft being used in the Highlands by private aircraft operators.
Moreover, British European Airways would do well to consider whether or not the corporation is altogether wise in laying so much emphasis upon the extension of facilities which already exist at airports to enable their aircraft to land at them. There is much to be said for extending the number of airfields and reducing the size of the aircraft operating from them.
The Highland Transport Board, in its report, may well have referred to many of these points. We await its publication with interest, and I hope that we shall have the opportunity of a further debate on this matter.
I welcome the opportunity to reiterate the vital importance of transportation in the Highlands. I hope that some of the points that I have made will be considered by my hon. Friend.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I know that there are a great many other subjects which hon. Members want to raise, but before we come to them I should like to intervene to say a few words before the Minister replies. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar)—

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison)—

Mr. Galbraith: The Member for Edinburgh, South—we soon will have another hon. Member on this side of the House for Aberdeen, South—for having initiated this debate, because it has given many hon. Members the opportunity to raise the case of separate lines, such as did my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) in a splendid fighting speech. I hope the Minister will be able to deal with these cases satisfactorily. I should like to ask one or two more general questions—

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman is on a bad wicket.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman says that I am on a bad wicket, but I think that I am on rather a good wicket. We will see how the Minister returns the balls which I shall bowl to him.
First, the railways in Scotland have been divided into two sorts. There are the black ones on the map and the grey ones. I think that hon. Members who have grey ones in their constituency will be very interested to know how the goats have been separated from the sheep; how, in fact, one line becomes black on the map and is privileged to stay open, and another one becomes grey, is underprivileged, and is a candidate for closure.
How was this network decided? That question was asked by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). We should like to know the basis on which it was decided, or whether it was just a hunch. I should like to hear from the Minister how this was decided. This is quite an important question. The Minister rightly said on Wednesday, when making her statement:
… this country cannot afford to throw money about just for the fun of it …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 408]
I think that we would all agree with that, and I expect that it is for this reason that the grey lines are to be subjected to the careful scrutiny organised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) when he was Minister of Transport, so as to decide what is right in the national interest, and whether the cost to the taxpayer of keeping open a non-paying line is justified.
I am glad that the Minister has seen the wisdom of my right hon. Friend's


procedure—this may come as a surprise to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel)—and has decided to abandon the preliminary screening by the Ministry of Transport, instituted by the right hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Tom Fraser), as an altogether unnecessary face saving operation, and has gone back to the very fair procedure instituted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey.

Mr. John Morris: I can give the hon. Gentleman some consolation. The publication of the map is the preliminary screening.

Mr. Galbraith: I do not see how it is the preliminary screening, because the grey lines have to go through the procedure laid down by my right hon. Friend. I think this a good thing, because if we cannot afford to throw money about, as the Minister said, why should the non-paying black lines not also be subject to the same procedure as the non-paying grey lines? This would be fair vis-à-vis the grey lines. The nation wants value for money, and it wants to do what is right, and it is only by the most careful scrutiny of each line in every aspect—financial as well as social—that it is possible to say what is the right thing to do.
In her statement the Minister spoke of the stability of the industry, and various hon. Members have referred to this, but no industry can have stability. It must fend off competitors. It must seek new markets. It should perhaps even try to make profits. None of these may have the same compelling force for a nationalised industry, which is subsidised, as they have for a private business, which is not, but they are nevertheless important. So, too, is technological change. This is something out of which the railways cannot contract, not unless they want to become Victorian transport museums, as the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian said.
My second question to the Minister is about the future of the black lines. We know how the grey lines are to be treated. They are to be treated in the same way as they were by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey. If the British Railways Board want to close some of the black lines, will it be prevented from

doing so, or can it proceed under section 56 in the same way as it can with the grey? I shall be very interested to hear the Minister's answer to this, because if the railways can proceed under section 56 for the black lines as well as for the grey, there is really no difference between the two. If, on the other hand, the railways cannot proceed under section 56, how can the Board streamline itself to changing demand for example, or to a decline in traffic?

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman should read the Minister's speech.

Mr. Galbraith: I have read it, and as a result of doing so, and because I failed on that occasion to catch the eye of the Chair, I felt it necessary to go a little further into the matter.
A slightly different question concerns lines which have been closed, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South referred. Has the Minister any plans for dealing with these as a result of what I would call the Norfolk, or East Anglian, experiment, perhaps by opening stations as unmanned halts where the line is still used? I have a personal interest in this, because my station is closed, but, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire never tires of pointing out to me, the line is not closed, and I wonder whether the Minister has any intention of trying out the East Anglian experiment in other parts of the country.

Mr. Manuel: This is very interesting, and there is a lot of loose talk about it. When the hon. Gentleman talks about unmanned halts, is he suggesting that they should operate during the hours of darkness, in winter, when cripples, or invalids, or aged people might need to use them?

Mr. Galbraith: I do not want to prejudice the matter in any way, or to take up too much time, but I understand that this operates in East Anglia. I do not know to what extent a train is more dangerous than a bus on a road. I merely want to know whether the Minister is thinking of trying the experiment in other parts of the country where, although stations have been closed, the lines serving them have not, and also, whether he is examining the possibilities, where lines have been closed, of the institution of


light railways, which, I understand, also operate in East Anglia.
If there is to be a national subsidy, areas which have lost their railways will be particularly anxious to see that they gain as much from it as do areas served by the black non-paying lines. If the subsidy is to be paid on a local basis—and we should like to know about that—the same argument will not necessarily apply, but the Minister must be careful that commuter subsidies do not make the towns more attractive at a time when planning authorities are trying to encourage the dispersal of industry away from highly populated areas.
My hon. Friends are worried because they do not understand what the Government are trying to do. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire understands. The country is bewildered by the Government's double talk. It is clear that they intend to close more lines than did the Conservative Government. In that case, why talk about burying Beeching? They are using the machinery and the procedure of the Conservative Government to distinguish between the lines which should be kept and those which should be closed. Why does the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire talk about brutalities? It is proper that this inquiry should be carried out. I hope that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire will accept that my hon. Friends and I like the railways.

Mr. Manuel: I hope that you like the railwaymen, too.

Mr. Galbraith: We like the railwaymen, too; what we do not like are taxes. Retaining uneconomic railway services means extra taxation. The Government are right to examine each case carefully, but we are concerned why this careful examination should be limited to the grey lines. Why not make the non-paying black lines go through the hoop, too? If there is to be a hoop—and the Government have said there is to be—and the Section 56 procedure is to be followed, all lines should go through the hoop.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the hon. Gentleman include the line from Inverness to Wick?

Mr. Galbraith: No. The line from Inverness to Wick has already been

through the hoop. It was probably before the hon. Member came into Parliament.
Having put it through the procedure, the Conservative Government decided, taking all the social and economic factors into account, that the line should stay open. This procedure should apply to all lines—grey and black. The country can then be assured that the non-paying lines which are maintained and paid for by the taxpayer have been properly examined and found to be fundamental to the national interest.
This is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey did, and I believe that it is what the Government are trying to do. If so, why do not they say so? Why not come out from behind their smokescreen and take the nation into their confidence? Are they afraid of the unions? I hope that the Minister will tell us what is in his mind and explain why a distinction should be made between two types of non-paying lines.

8.55 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): I hope that my intervention now will not be taken as meaning that I seek to foreclose the debate, because this is only subject No. 2 and I have to stay to deal with subject No. 16 in the early hours of the morning.
We are grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) for raising this subject. I take his point that he did not vote for the Third Reading of the Transport Act, 1962, but he did, of course, vote for the Second Reading. The division lists of hon. Members who voted for that Act on 21st November, 1961, show that 12 Scottish Members voted, of whom 11 were Conservatives and one a Liberal, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). Of the 323 who were in the House on that night and voted for the Second Reading, for many reasons, some of them well known to us, only 162 remain. This is perhaps the danger of voting for Bills of that kind.
Some of the remarks made by hon. Members opposite show the political schizophrenia from which they suffer, particularly the most interesting remarks of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). He said quite blithely, although not having faced the


situation which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South had faced, that he would certainly have voted for the 1962 Act. He wanted the application of commercial criteria and sacrificed everything on that altar.
But, when it comes to a particular closure in his constituency, or in that of any other hon. Member opposite, they are most vociferous in their demands to see the Minister or myself, or to put Questions in the House or to have Adjournment debates. A few months ago, I counted up the vast correspondence which I had had since coming to the Ministry from hon. Members who had blithely voted for the 1962 Transport Act and the Beeching Report a year later—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: This is a most extraordinary suggestion. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that because we believe—those of us who do—in the operation of the 1962 Transport Act, with all its provision for Ministerial decision on the basis of social need, where that can be shown, we should be inhibited from helping our constituents to examine whether there is such a need before a decision is reached. This is most improper of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Member is not inhibited, and nor is any other hon. Member. What I am saying is that he and his hon. Friends who think like him are suffering from political schizophrenia, in that they are saying that British Railways must carry out the commercial obligations of the 1962 Act and, when a Minister of the Crown, following her responsibility over the social obligations, as did the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), decides that a particular line should not close and thereby impose a social burden contrary to the commercial philosophy outlined by the hon. Member, that British Railways must carry both these responsibilities. They are quite contradictory.
We cannot ruthlessly pursue a commercial policy such as the hon. Member wants and at the same time impose social obligations on British Railways. This is why, in the autumn, we shall be bringing in a Bill which will, for the first time since 1962, give British Railways a realistic financial structure. If there is a decision that a particular line should be

kept open in the social interest, the community must find a way of paying for it.
It is wrong, on any commercial principle, to give this ambiguous remit to British Railways that it should have the strict commercial responsibility of paying its way and also that, whenever it puts up a particular closure proposal which is obnoxious to a Minister, it must carry the responsibility for that. This is the dichotomy, the split mind, of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is a vitally important business matter that we should ensure that the remit of this great industry is absolutely clear, and that is what we shall do in the Bill which will be introduced in the autumn.
Hon. Members have asked me a number of detailed questions about the principle of the map which my right hon. Friend published. They have also asked a number of constituency questions. I want to make it clear that hon. Members are entitled—and on every occasion they do so I will be as courteous as possible when replying—to raise matters such as these and it is only right that they should want to go into them in detail. It is because a number of detailed matters were involved that I delayed my reply to the hon. Member for South Angus. I did so because I wanted to go into the matter anew and ensure that no mistakes had been made. That is why I sent him a letter last Friday, after having gone into the matter personally in great detail.
Since I came to the Ministry of Transport a year last January, I have lived, so to speak, with rail closures. I have gone into each application—as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) no doubt did when he was in office—and have given each proposal an enormous amount of time and consideration. I am not saying that all our decisions are the right ones. One would need to be superhuman always to he right. However, I give the hon. Member for South Angus every assurance that we go through these matters personally with enormous care; and that is why I wanted to ensure that the decision imposed for his rail closure was the right one.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I intervene again merely to make it quite clear, lest there be doubt in anybody's mind, that I am not suggesting that the Minister has not gone into this particular closure


proposal with the greatest possible care. I know that he has.

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will not weary the House by going into the matter further, except once again to make it abundantly clear where we stand on this matter. I spelt out in my letter to the hon. Gentleman the issues involved, the aspect concerning Dundee and the reason why conditions were imposed regarding the express services to Perth. I understand that a great number of people who use the railway which will be closed go to Glasgow, that the Perth connections are better and that an express bus service to Dundee would save, because of the road, only three or four minutes. We have considered this to be the right decision.
I say with the utmost sincerity that if it should transpire over a period of time—that experience over a reasonable period indicates—that the alternative services need further strengthening in any direction, the Minister would be willing to look at the matter again on the basis of factual evidence of need. Indeed, this is an obligation on the Minister under the 1962 Act. I repeat that if the present services are found to be unsatisfactory and if people cannot have the kind of alternative service they want—alternative to the rail service which is closing; I say this because it is an obligation on the Minister—the Minister will look with care into the needs of a particular area.
Questions were asked about the grey and black lines and the procedures which are followed. The main aim of the Minister has been to ensure that for this industry, which has been reported upon time and again and which has been organised and reorganised, it was high time that at the earliest possible opportunity we introduced as much stability as possible into the railway system. Thus, after a great deal of consultation between the Chairman of the Railways Board and the Minister, it was decided that the basic railway network for development should be a little over 11,000 miles. We looked at the commercial and social aspects. All the matters that could be taken into consideration in this period of time were taken into consideration, and this was the basic network that we decided was essen-

tial in the interests of the nation as a whole.
We have been asked about the black areas on the map. These are areas whose foreseeable future is as certain as possible, as the Minister set out in her statement—

Mr. Galbraith: Does that mean that if the Railways Board wishes to close one of the black lines it can act under the Section 56 procedure, or must the Board have special permission from the Minister?

Mr. Morris: The situation as we see it is that we can give an assurance that no closures of thick black lines are planned for the foreseeable future. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is for the Board to bring forward proposals at any time to the Minister to close any particular railway line, but it is not the intention of either the Chairman of the Board or the Minister in the foreseeable future to put black areas in danger.

Mr. Galbraith: That means that the railways decide which of the grey lines and which of the black lines, if any, they wish to close, and then proceed under Section 56 with regard to both. I appreciate that at the moment the Board has no intention to close any black lines, but if it wanted to the Board could proceed with such closures as with the grey?

Mr. Morris: As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, the Board operates under the law of the land. The law of the land is the Act of 1962 and, until it is changed, the Railways Board has an obligation. We hope very much that a new Bill will be brought before the House in the autumn. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will then give it his full support. That is what we expect of him, but perhaps we expect too much.
We give the assurance that it is the aim of both the Minister and the Chairman not to plan any closures of thick black lines. That is to ensure stability in the industry, and we hope to achieve that aim. The plan has been received encouragingly by those people who use the railways in all parts of the land, and by railwaymen. I think that it will give a big morale boost to all who work in the industry to know that for this part of the system we have stability.
By no stretch of imagination should it be thought that the Minister has taken a decision to close that which is marked in grey. There, it will be up to the Board, as now, to come forward with any proposals it wishes to make. Those proposals will then be examined by the transport users' consultative committees and, as I think my right hon. Friend has told the House, she intends to enlarge and extend the membership of the T.U.C.C. to ensure that there is better representation of what she regards as the man in the street. We seek wider representation on these important boards, which have done very useful work.
There will also be the advice of the Economic Planning Council. The hon. Member for South Angus may well have been mistaken in the case he mentioned, because I am advised that the Economic Council was consulted.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Then could the Parliamentary Secretary explain why it was that the Secretary of State for Scotland told me that it could not be consulted because it had not been established?

Mr. Morris: It may well be that the hon. Gentleman, speaking off the cuff, is thinking of another body. I am advised that the Economic Planning Council was consulted. Of course, if I am in error, I shall write and inform the hon. Gentleman, but that is the information I have received while preparing this speech.

Mr. MacArthur: Clearly in my recollection the Secretary of State for Scotland assured us at Question Time one day that it was impossible to consult the Council because it had not been established. By that time the decision had already been made and announced.

Mr. Morris: I think I have been absolutely fair to the House. I have told the House the advice I have received was that the Economic Planning Council was consulted. I say in fairness to the hon. Member for South Angus that if I am wrong I shall write to him, but this is the advice I have received.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker told us at the beginning of the debate that there were a large number of subjects and a great many hon. Members had given him notice of their desire to catch his eye at some time. While I recognise that this is exempted business of an important kind, there should be some limit to the number of interventions which hon. Members may make when a debate is over.

Mr. MacArthur: Further to that point of order. It would surely be reasonable to make an intervention briefly and courteously when an hon. Member has been misinformed and wishes to correct what an hon. Member said, so that he could make an apology at some later stage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Obviously there has to be a certain amount of give and take. I agree with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) that there should be a limit to the number of interventions in Ministerial statements when we conclude a debate. Mr. Morris.

Mr. Morris: I was in no way suggesting that I had been misinformed, but I make abundantly clear that if I have been misinformed I will correct it. I said that the Economic Planning Council was consulted. It may be that the hon. Member is confusing this with a another planning group.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Mr. Bruce-Gardyne rose—

Mr. Morris: I do not think we can pursue this matter further. This is the advice I have received and, if I am wrong and have been unfair to the House and the hon. Member, I will correct the matter. In fairness to other hon. Members who want to take part in the debate, I must proceed. The hon. Member has had his chance and I think that what I have said is right.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Gentleman is talking about a regional planning council.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Morris: There are a number of other problems I want to deal with. For example, on the Dingwall and Kyle of Lochalsh line, which is shown on the map


in grey, we had in interim decision, not a final decision, by the right hon. Member for Wallasey on 16th April, 1964. It was considered that the ultimate future of the line should be reconsidered when some progress had been made with road improvements. This in no way suggests that any lines marked in grey have had a final decision made.
The Minister will give her decision with this background of the T.U.C.C.s and Economic Planning Council's views. In addition, she has set up a special unit in the Ministry's economic planning directorate to ensure that wider considerations of financial and economic aspects of closures are taken fully into account before a decision is made one way or the other. The task of this unit will be to see that she has all the economic and financial information on each case and to cross-check where necessary. This unit will take account of the recommendations of the joint steering group of which I am chairman.
There will be this very detailed machinery for examination to ensure that not only present need but also future need is taken into account. The publication of the basic railway network map is a major step forward. Some of the lines in Scotland which very likely would have gone if the philosophy of the 1962 Act had been pursued and we found ourselves ultimately with a mileage of 8,000 miles, are the Perth-Aviemore-Inverness line, the Aberdeen-Inverness, Helensburgh-Oban, and Ayr-Stranraer lines. These lines would have been in danger if the philosophy of the 1962 Act had been carried to its ultimate conclusions.
Some of the other lines marked in grey are so shown for the very reason that they are now in the pipeline. This must be made abundantly clear to all those who are anxious and concerned. Under the Act, the Minister could not prejudice her decision as to any line for which the procedures had been initiated. If they were at any stage in the pipeline, be it a proposal by British Railways, be it before the T.U.C.C., or be it before her for consideration, she marked such lines in grey, because the procedures under the Statute had been initiated and she had not taken a final decision.
I hope that we shall be able to expedite all those now in the pipeline. This is

not always possible, because we have to have a fairly wide study and there are other implications. I hope that as soon as possible we shall be able to expedite all those which are in grey and which are now going through the machinery. There are difficulties. I do not want to suggest that we can proceed at too rapid a pace where other studies are going on which have to be borne in mind before any final decision is taken.
The Aberdeen-Keith-Elgin line was mentioned. This is another line which is with the Minister for decision at the moment. This is why it is so marked on the map. The Edinburgh-Hawick-Carlisle line is also in the pipeline. This was mentioned by an hon. Member on the Liberal bench. Here the Minister is awaiting the outcome of some of the studies which will be necessary before she can take an ultimate decision.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: It was myself who raised the question of this line. There was no Liberal on the benches at the time.

Mr. James Davidson: That is not true. I was here.

Mr. Morris: I know, in fairness to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South that a number of hon. Members have raised this matter from time to time. I do not want in any way to allocate glory for having raised this issue. Perhaps there was no Liberal Member for that part of the world here at the time.

Mr. Davidson: There was. I was here.

Mr. Morris: If there was not, the position has been remedied. In fairness, these are some of the very instances which have been mentioned in the debate and which are now going through the pipeline.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South also asked about singling on the Newcastle-Edinburgh line. The question of singling is not a matter for the Minister. It is for the Railways Board. The hon. Member will know that enormous strides have been made—I now speak generally—in signalling. The effect of singling does not of necessity mean that less traffic is able to be passed along a particular length of line if it has had the advantage of the quite substantial


expenditure which takes place on signalling. This is a matter for the Board and I cannot comment any further on that.
The hon. Gentleman also raised a number of issues concerning local railways lines in Edinburgh itself. The proposal in regard to the Edinburgh-Corstophine line was published in December, 1966, by the Railways Board. This matter has not so far come before the Minister and the T.U.C.C. hearing will be held on 5th April. The other closures in Edinburgh—for instance, Edinburgh-Dunbar, some stations on the Edinburgh-Berwick-on-Tweed line, Edinburgh-Kingsrowe—took place under the Conservative Administration. I cannot help him any further on those four. I think that I have dealt—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members still have subjects to raise on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. Morris: I am very grateful, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to deal with the large number of local issues concerning hon. Members on both sides of the House. I think that I have dealt with most in some detail. Having regard to your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, I hope that I do no disservice to any hon. Member if, having dealt with most of the detailed points, I write to the hon. Member concerned if I have omitted any.
I hope that the basic network map which we have published will bring comfort to people in all parts of the country. We have introduced stability to a large portion of our railway system and on that which is still in doubt we want to ensure that anxiety is removed at the earliest opportunity. The new basic network map has been welcomed by railwaymen from one end of the land to the other. Hon. Members opposite must fairly soon make up their minds whether their major complaint is that we are doing too much or too little.

EMPLOYMENT, SOUTH-WEST SCOTLAND

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: While transport is of prime importance in southwest Scotland, I now turn to the problems of unemployment and industry in that area. For this debate I have alerted the Board of Trade and the Scottish Office, and I am pleased to see that they are represented tonight. I also mentioned that I would raise subjects within the sphere of the Ministries of Technology and Power. That indicates that one of the difficulties that faces us in Scotland is the complexity of Departments dealing with trade and industry. But, certainly, in Scotland, the Board of Trade and the Scottish Office have acted in close liaison.
I initiate this debate on south-west Scotland economic and unemployment problems because they are very real at the moment, and the Government must be jolted into early action. I shall concentrate on Dumfriesshire, and my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) will look after his own area very well if he has the opportunity.
I want to start with the striking significance of the unemployment figures, which are the highest for March ever recorded by the Ministry of Labour. Within the past day or two the figure of 1,651 people unemployed has been recorded, which is 540 more than in last March. Following the mildest winter that anyone can remember, that means that there are about one-third more people unemployed than there were a year ago. It is also very significant that there has been only a marginal decrease since February, when the figure should normally be picking up in the early spring in Scotland.
To some hon. Members, those figures may not appear to be desperately high. But when they are looked at in percentages, running up to 10 per cent. in southwest of Scotland, the situation is seen as desperately serious. In the White Paper, "The Scottish Economy 1965 to 1970, a Plan for Expansion", the trends of employment set out on page 113 stress that movement has been from agriculture towards industry. It therefore follows that it is to industry that we must look for more jobs and to reduce the rapidly


rising rate of emigration. We fully discussed emigration in a recent debate, and there is no doubt that south-west Scotland has its share of the 45,000 Scots leaving the home country every year.
Before coming to my main remarks about industry I wish to stress the importance of agriculture and forestry. They have been in a bad state of health for a number of years, and that has been accentuated by disappointing Price Reviews in 1965 and 1966 followed by a disastrous autumn a few months ago. While I welcome the Price Review of 1967 as a short step forward in the right direction, a great deal needs to be done before we get profitability in the hills in Scotland.
I mention this because a profitable agriculture is of such enormous benefit to the economy of a rural county like Dumfriesshire. It provides jobs for the ancillary services, merchants, agricultural engineers, shopkeepers and other service industries. I will not touch on agriculture again, but I hope that the Ministers realise that it has a very important place in the provision of jobs in south-west Scotland.
I turn to the most critical situation, which is in Upper Nithsdale, the Burgh of Sanquhar and the township of Kirkconnel. The Minister will know that the economy in this part of Dumfriesshire has centred on coal over many years, but, with pit closures, new sources of work must be found. The Conservative Government, rightly seeing the necessity of channelling jobs into areas of high unemployment, set up a development district there and built the first advance factory which employs about 30 people. The earnest hope is that one day soon it will expand. As a development district, the area has had available to it all the special grants set up under the employment Acts. As the whole county is now a development area, I hope the assistance will continue.
Following pressure, perhaps helped by the debate on the coal industry in November, 1965, the Government announced second and third advance factories which in the normal course of events would have seemed to be reasonable provision for the numbers of unemployed at the time. I accept that and I was glad when the Government made the announcement, although the real worth of an advance factory is not

demonstrated until the tenant and labour force has been installed.
The picture will alter dramatically if the Fauldhead colliery at Kirkconnel should close. I brought out the effects of this in the debate on the coal industry 15 months ago. This is an old pit and it is not sound financially. This is nobody's fault. The workings are difficult and expensive. Only superhuman efforts by the management and miners have kept it open. The Minister of Power has set a reducing output of coal over the next year, but I ask him, in the name of the miners of Upper Nithsdale, to keep the pit open as long as possible. The financial effects on the country could be far worse if it were closed before alternative jobs were available than if it were run at a slight loss.
Having made that plea, I must say that I am afraid that, as night follows day, this pit will close, and that time is not so desperately far away. What then will be the future of the 800 miners who work at Fauldhead? The men are keen and ready to work. There is a strong community spirit and an absolute refusal to see Kirkconnel become a ghost town. This must not happen, and today is not too soon to start working on appropriate action. We cannot expect many men to transfer to the Barony or Killoch pits, in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes).
The South Ayrshire coalfield is contracting. Knockshinnoch will, I believe, close in the not too distant future. It might be that not all that many jobs would be available if miners wanted to transfer from Kirkconnel. It involves a journey of 20 or 25 miles over a particularly difficult road in winter. It is too far to expect miners to travel there daily.
The enormity of the situation is illustrated by the fact that over 50 per cent. of the working population of the district is at the Fauldhead pit. Some may retire and some may transfer, but, looking at the basic facts, we need at least 600 new jobs should that pit close in the near future. The two advance factories, when they are operating, will perhaps employ 50 or 100 men each. But I am sure that the Minister of State will agree that that is only scratching the surface of what will be a critical situation. We want a male-employing industry with about 600 jobs. I know that it is a tall


order, but that must be faced, and faced now. I know that the same position is prevalent in other parts of Scotland, but nowhere is it more urgent.
Sometimes ill-advised people try to drive a wedge between Sanguhar and Kirkconnel. This is unfair. There is unity of purpose between the two authorities to provide jobs in the district, and much credit is due to the two councils for all the work that they are doing in attracting industry.
Before the site of a major new development, if it comes, is decided upon, I hope that Kirkconnel will be given very serious consideration. The reasons that the Board of Trade gave to Kirkconnel last year for rejecting its industrial sites were not very convincing, particularly to the people who live in Kirkconnel. The provision of a factory in Kirkconnel would be an enormous boost to morale through people seeing a factory going up in their midst.
I hope that the Minister will realise that there is room for new factories in Sanquhar and Kirkconnel. All the necessary services are available, and I can assure any industrialist of a most warm welcome. A fine new school is on the stocks. In Sanquhar, recently, we had a meeting of the new economic consultative group. The Secretary of State himself spoke to the group. I must say that he did not leave the area feeling that there was enormous hope in the near future. I hope that the Minister of State has something more buoyant and enthusiastic to say than the Secretary of State had when he was there early this month.
I want to know whether the Scottish Office and the Board of Trade are aware of the impending jobs crisis and what steps they are taking now. We cannot wait for lengthy deliberations of policy groups and planning councils. All this ground has been covered before. The problem is known; it is quite straightforward. An industry for 600 men is required. I hope that the Minister of State will not place too much weight on the provision of the two new advance factories, because they are simply not big enough for the problem ahead of us. I am sure that the Board of Trade will make the maximum effort. It could be a catastrophic situation if the mine closed before the jobs were ready. The Minister will know

that if he said "Yes" today it would take two years to get a large new factory built and a tenant in and engaging labour. I hope that I have expressed the urgency of the problem.
I want to touch on a few general aspects about south-west Scotland. I have explained the high rate of unemployment. There is no doubt that the quickest way to provide jobs is for private industry to expand. This can happen only in a flourishing financial situation. The Government must provide this; they have not done so. Indeed, many of their measures have had a serious detrimental effect on a rural community frequently relying on service industries—the Selective Employment Tax, the fuel tax, the motor car taxes, and the increasing costs of running rural buses. I hope that the Chancellor will do something about differential taxation with regard to the Selective Employment Tax in his Budget.
Dumfries is the geographical centre of Britain. Firms there can maintain their Scottish identity and yet be as near the English markets as they possibly can be. In the present situation we find the small burghs as well looking for employment. The large Burgh of Dumfries has a very large amount of unemployment at this very moment. It is true that the problems of south-west Scotland are well known. The local authorities know them. The Scottish Council (Development and Industry) knows them, and does a first-class job in my part of Scotland. In the old days the Dumfries and Galloway Development Association went over all this ground. As my hon. Friend knows, the Galloway Publicity Association has every known fact about the tourist industry.
We have welcomed the fact that the Government have set up these new planning consultative groups, which I hope will do well, but I hope that they will not rely in every case on these deliberations, because time is now of prime importance. I have not forgotten Langholm and the Borders consultative group and that the needs there are different from the industrial problems of the South-West.
The Aerodrome Industrial Site at Dumfries is first-class and I welcome the development which has taken place there including recently the new gas plant. But what a wonderful new site this would be


for another advance factory. Yet from a Question a fortnight ago it seems that the Government have decided that it is not time for a factory there or at Annan, or at Lockerbie. I am glad that we have agreed that the new technical college should go there. Let us see it expand both in knowledge and in prestige, and perhaps into a university college and maybe one day into a university.
I see from the newspapers that the Government are to manufacture new telephone equipment. Would not this be the sort of factory to set up in this part of Scotland to manufacture telephones? I know that every hon. Member is shouting for it, but would it not be an excellent site for the new Royal Mint in the same way as we took the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow? I see that during the last few years the Government have taken on 40,000 new civil servants. Could we not have more Government offices in south-west Scotland to house and use the skills of these civil servants? Why have we not been able to have the new Construction Industry Training Board at Dumfries?
We read in the Scottish plan that Dumfries is an excellent growth point, and we accept that. There are others who feel that the exceptional rail marshalling yard and the M6 to Scotland mean that perhaps the eastern end of the county, near Gretna, would be even better. But in view of the extreme problems in Galloway I feel that we should have concentrated any major expansion in the area on the Burgh of Dumfries.
If we are talking of Government aid in relation to attracting industry and stemming emigration, why cannot the south-west of Scotland be given more priority? Why do we always assume that industry must go to the central belt or the south of England? We are to have colour television in England while in the south-west of Scotland we cannot even get B.B.C.2. This is the sort of thing which often influences a manufacturer. Why cannot we have a new indoor sports centre in the south-west of Scotland, to keep the young people in that area? Why have all these facilities to go to the highly-populated areas of Glasgow and the South? This is the kind of constructive idea which the Government could channel to my part of Scotland.
I turn briefly to two specific criticisms of the Government. The first concerns Chapelcross. I informed the Ministry of Technology that I would raise this matter tonight. Here is our great technological industry, built near Annan in 1955, to produce plutonium and electricity. It provided work for over 1,000 employees and added greatly to the development of the district, with houses and social clubs and excellent apprenticeship schemes. The apprenticeships at the craneworks and boiler works are a wonderfully skilled environment for the young people.
That is why it was so very disappointing that we have not had the technological expansion that there should have been. The Government's promises to the nation about technology before the last two elections are well known, but we have not seen such development at this important site. There has been a steady rundown. As the generation of electricity becomes more and more efficient, fewer employees are needed and the rest have drifted away to the atomic energy stations further afield, and the labour force is steadily running down.
There was a ray of hope at the time of the prototype fast reactor and, while we were glad that it came to Scotland, it was a great disappointment that it did not come to Chapelcross. That disappointment could have been removed if the Government had offered an alternative development at Chapelcross, but a year ago, the then Minister of Technology, Mr. Frank Cousins, sank all hope by saying that it could look forward to no further development and would settle down as an electricity power station. Could not the Government look at this again? Could they not increase the generating capacity and perhaps set up a desalination plant and provide increased laboratory space and try to hold the labour force by some further developments? The decision was a terrible letdown for the area, and the Government owe some opportunity to this most important industry.
Then there is the case of the Solway barrage. Many years ago, residents of the county came to realise how important this could be to the area, both from the point of view of power and for the provision of a road across into Cumberland. In the early 1960s, it was dramatically developed by Dr. Drew, with his


concept of using water and atomic power to produce electricity. But others thought of it as a tidal flow barrage. This was not accepted by the Minister of Power. The present Government saw it solely as a possible water reserve for Manchester and the north of England. Reluctantly and parsimoniously, they carried out a feasibility study and, after much prodding, the report was published recently at the same time as the report on Morecambe. Although the project would have been economically viable and possibly of great value to the south of Scotland, the Government decided against Solway and in favour of Morecambe.
This was another blow to Scotland and to the prospective employment on the construction of the barrage and afterwards. Thus, the only new major Government enterprise in the south of Scotland has been at Chapelcross. I am sure that the Minister could make a more determined effort now to channel development there and not, as stated in the National Plan, in the late 1990s.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will, I know, acquit me of discourtesy, but I remind him that this is the third of 18 debates tonight. I hope that he will give some consideration to that fact.

Mr. Monro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. But I also appreciate the very grave problems facing my constituency. I shall not be more than three minutes now.
In conclusion, I want to draw attention to the diminishing rate of road construction in the area. A great deal of employment has been provided in recent years on the Glasgow-Carlisle road. The Minister will understand how important it is to build a road from Lancashire to Scotland, because I am sure that tourists and industry will flow along it to the South of Scotland.
I do not think that the Government have any right to be complacent over the problems in Sanquhar and Kirkconnel at the moment. What do they intend to do in this area, particularly about the possible pit closure? I want him to say that every effort will be made to encourage private industry as well as Government Departments to come there. I hope, too, that he will say that more

advance factories will be built in the area.
I repeat that the highest March figure of unemployment ever recorded is most serious in my constituency. I hope that I have impressed upon the Minister the seriousness of it and how vital it is to take action at once.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say that if every hon. Gentleman who is called speaks at length on the Consolidated Fund Bill, other hon. Members who have an equal right will not be able to speak.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. John Brewis: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) on his excellent speech. He has mentioned many matters which also affect my constituency, which will enable me to make my remarks shorter, as I shall not have to raise those matters again.
I do not suppose that any section of the Labour Party's election promises has brought more disillusionment to the unemployed in Scotland than their regional development policies, particularly to those in my constituency. During the last month or two, unemployment in the entire County of Wigtownshire has been knocking up towards 10 per cent. I do not suppose that any county in the whole of Great Britain has an unemployment rate which approaches that, although I am aware that there are pockets like Sanquhar and Kirkconnel which have slightly higher rates. We have also to bear in mind that this winter has been a very mild one, and that employees in the building and construction industry will hardly have been laid off at all. If it had been a really bad winter like that of 1963, I tremble to think what the unemployment rate would have been.
I want to call attention to one or two of the figures in the plan which has been produced by the Government, and particularly to the figures for net migration from Galloway, which are set out on page 107 of the Scottish Plan. We hear a lot about the depopulation of the Borders, but it will be seen from this that, between 1951 and 1961, the Borders lost 7·2 per cent. in net migration compared with a figure of 12·5 per


cent. in Galloway. We know that between 1961 and 1964, migration went down somewhat, but it has resumed an upward spiral since, and it is now at a very high rate.
Had that migration not taken place, one shudders to think what the rate of unemployment would have been. Probably it would have been something in the region of the pre-war figures.
The problem is largely that of the rundown in agricultural employment over the last few years. Again, I find the Scottish Plan interesting, because it points out that, over the next 10 years, 2,200 jobs in the South-West will be lost in agriculture. These will be jobs for men mostly, so that every year in the South-West we shall need 220 new jobs simply to replace those which have been lost in agriculture. We have heard from my hon. Friend that, in the case of the Fauldhead Colliery, there is liable to be a loss of 600 jobs, and that underlines to the Minister of State how serious is the need for male employment in the area.
It may also interest him to know that, between 1951 and 1964, the Government of the day produced 3,500 new jobs in manufacturing in the South-West. In spite of that, we have this enormous net migration rate to which I have just alluded. I hope this will give him an idea of the problem which we face. There were then one or two big developments like the I.C.I. factory, just outside Dumfries and Chapelcross. We can see no sign of similar developments at the moment.
The highest unemployment rate in Galloway remains at Stranraer. We have had some success with the establishment of the American shoe factory called Baby Deer and a textile factory called Sunchild. Both factories are getting on well. I remember how sceptical the Board of Trade was that any industry could settle at Stranraer, but it has done so, and the labour there has proved to be extremely good. What is more important, the Baby Deer company, with its headquarters in the Midlands, has decided that production at Stranraer is so efficient that it is closing down its headquarters in the Midlands and is moving it to Stranraer. Therefore we can explode any idea that Stranraer is not a suitable site for industry.
We have at the moment an advance factory standing empty. It has been empty for about two months. It is absolutely vital that we should get a new tenant for it. I appeal to the Minister of State to give this high priority. Many of us feel that the Board of Trade has a secret list of priorities, in which the Highlands no doubt come first, then Dundee, and then the new towns in Scotland. We feel that for too long we have been at the wrong end of the list of priorities at the Board of Trade.
I wish also to make a criticism of the Government about the position at Stranraer. In the old days Stranraer was a development district and we received a preferential grant accordingly. Now the whole of Scotland and the north-east of England is a development district, and we are in the same position as big cities such as Newcastle or Liverpool for grants. We are much less likely to get industry. It is more likely to go to one of these big cities.
This is a criticism of Government policy. There should have been two tiers of development districts, one for the more critical areas like the Highlands and one for the rest of the country. I want also to mention the area of the Machars of Wigtownshire. This is largely an agricultural area and a very critical one. The unemployment figure has gone up to 9·1 per cent., which is absolutely enormous by English standards. Over half the unemployment in the area is south of Wigtown which is an agricultural area. There is no other employment apart from agriculture and creameries. It is urgent that we should have some help in this area.
I would suggest that in the next programme we need at least two advance factories, one at Wigtown and one at Withorn. If we are not careful the depopulation will grow and the area will become like the Highlands area, and there will not be enough people left to start an industry if an industrialist chose to come to that area. I regard this as being particularly vital.
Much the same can be said for the Stewartry and particularly the Kirkcudbright area, although the unemployment rate of 5·8 per cent. is not quite so high.
Cheaper electricity is being offered in the Highlands. We are just as capable


of offering cheap electricity from the Galloway power scheme as they are from the Hydro Board Scheme in the Highlands. I hope this will be kept in mind. If new developments at Invergordon can get cheap electricity, I see no reason why developments at Kirkcudbright should not have the same. I should like to make two quick points.
First, the Government should stop discriminating against service industries such as transport, construction, and the hotel and tourist industry. They have been doing so in many ways. There has been an increase in licence fees, and in petrol duty, which have affected the transport industry. Investment incentives have been withdrawn from the hotel and building industries, and no grants have been put in their place. This particularly hits the rural areas.
In the South-West, for every ten persons engaged in manufacturing, there are about 36 engaged in service industries, so 36 people are being hit pretty hard when we talk about the S.E.T., while ten persons are getting a small premium out of it. This is really affecting the rural areas and it is essential that the S.E.T. should be recast so that development areas are either excluded or given some premium so that they can attract industry.
Secondly, we need better communications in my area. I think that this really is a priority. All industrialists, quite often unnecessarily, are scared of high transport costs. Recently the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, who I am glad to see in his place, came to Dumfries and told us that we would be a boom area by 1990. We are rather tired of people, and particularly the right hon. Gentleman, telling us that we are to be a boom area, because it was the right hon. Gentleman who told Scotland that she was going to be sheltered from the squeeze and we have rather stopped believing him.
But if we are to become a boom area, what an extraordinary time this is for the Government to decide to pull up the Dumfries-Stranraer railway track, because even if the reopening cannot be justified now, surely it will be justified by the time it becomes a boom area. It is ridiculous to pull up this track.
A great deal of work needs to be done on our main Stranraer-Dumfries road, and also on the main road from Stranraer to Ayr, but I shall not go further into the details of that this evening.
I think that the priorities should be, first, better communications, then attracting industry, and after that no doubt we would need a crash programme for housing.
There are other things which I should like to have mentioned, but, bearing in mind what you said, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my speech, and I shall listen with great interest to what the right hon. Gentleman has to say in reply.

9.58 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I shall try to deal with all the matters which have been raised which come within the purview of the Board of Trade. I think that I can make my speech shorter than it otherwise would have been if I say—and I hope that the hon. Members who have raised these important topics will accept this—that the views which have been expressed about the S.E.T., about the need for new or better transport arrangements, and about power development, will be brought to the attention of my right hon. Friends who are concerned with these things.
I want, first, to get clear the boundaries of the area with which the Board of Trade is concerned. I take it that we are covering the counties of Wigtown, Kirkcudbright and Dumfries, excluding perhaps the Langholm district, and we would include in the area called the south-west of Scotland those parts of the County of Ayr which are covered by the Ministry of Labour exchange areas of Girvan and Cumnock. Within this wide area of southwest Scotland we agree that there is a substantial unemployment problem, and I assure hon. Members that we are very much concerned about it. Although, as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) said, the number of work people who are without jobs is not large, we recognise the difficulty which is created in these rural and semi-rural areas by a high percentage of unemployment.
I do not want to go into detail about specific small areas, but if, in such an area, we can place one factory which would provide employment for 300


people the area would be suffering almost from over-full employment. That is the size of the problem. All the way through, therefore, we are concerned to see to what extent we can get either an expansion of industries already established or the introduction of new industries.
It is quite proper for hon. Members opposite to complain that the Government have not done enough for south-west Scotland in the provision of industrial development, but I want to get the record straight. Taking the period from the beginning of the Local Employment Act—April 1960—to the end of last year, Government financial assistance in the southwest of Scotland for the provision of industrial development amounted to £1½ million. But 60 per cent. of that assistance was provided in the last 20 months, under this Government. Hon. Members may want the figures that apply to their own areas. Let us take Stranraer. In the five years of the previous Administration the amount of money spent on industrial development there was £80,000 whereas under this Government, it has been £276,000.

Mr. Brewis: Can the right hon. Gentleman mention a single factory which his Government brought to Stranraer?

Mr. Darling: I am going on to explain the factory development in Stranraer. I am giving the figures of Government expenditure on industrial development. In Sanquhar £55,000 was spent under the previous Government, whereas £195,000 has been spent under this Government. I want to get the record straight in order to show that we are aware of the problems and are doing what we can to help.
I have taken note of the fact that the hon. Member for Dumfries wants the Royal Mint, the manufacture of telephones by the Post Office, and many Government offices to be established in his area. I agree that it is an excellent growth point, and I will see that the propositions he has put forward are brought to the attention of my hon. Friends. I assure the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brew is) that there is no secret list of priorities inside the Board of Trade. We are concerned to find employment for an additional 2,000 or more people through factory development and in other ways, and we shall do what we can to see that industrial expansion goes on. The hon.

Member raised the question of providing a differential two-tier system to help development areas. This is an extremely interesting suggestion, but it would be difficult to carry out. The hon. Member can appreciate how it would operate in his own area, but circumstances in development areas differ considerably, and it would be impracticable to introduce a scale of inducements which was dependent on somebody's assessment of the needs of each separate area within the development areas.

Mr. Brewis: This system operates in Italy.

Mr. Darling: We have taken note of the Italian example. I do not want to go into too much detail, but I am willing to discuss the question with the hon. Member at any time he likes.
We have deliberately moved from a system of designating certain localities for assistance on the basis of the single criterion of unemployment and are now designating wider areas within which clear-cut benefits are available and on the basis of which industrialists will be able to make their plans with confidence. I am certain that this will encourage greater industrial investment in these areas. This is the only way to tackle their deep-seated problems of unemployment. In the long run, the whole area will benefit from our steps to deal with its problems.
Since this Government took office, six advance factories have been announced for south-west Scotland. There are difficulties about acquiring land after one has announced that the factories are to be built. We have had a great deal of help from the hon. Member for Dumfries, which I freely acknowledge, in finding the Blackaddie Farm Site, where construction of the advance factory will go ahead as quickly as possible.
We have also taken note of his points about the difficulties of Kirkconnel. The remaining two factories at Girvan and Stranraer are virtually completed and every effort is being made to find suitable tenants. We are convinced that the way to provide industrial development in these areas, which have difficulties because of transport, because they are away from the general industrial stream


and because of the rundown of agriculture and, in part of the area, of coal mining, is to acquire industrial sites and get advance factories going, because they are the magnets for industrialists.
My right hon. Friend is here, but if he has not heard the appropriate part of the debate, I will see that his attention is drawn to the requests for more advance factories in south-west Scotland. The hon. Member for Dumfries raised the question of the closure of the Fauldhead Pit and I will see that his views are drawn to the Minister of Power's attention. I express no opinion about whether it is possible to keep the pit going, but the real answer is to provide alternative work and start industrial development. We shall watch the situation carefully and press ahead vigorously with the advance factories which have been announced and seek suitable tenants. We hope that these will prove the magnets for further industrial development.
I was pleased at the reference by the hon. Member for Galloway to the success of the Baby Deer shoes factory in Stranraer. When he said that the Board of Trade was sceptical about its success, I think he was referring to a previous Administration. Having visited not these outlying parts but the far west of Wales and one or two other outlying places and seen advance factories established and operating, I would never be sceptical about their success anywhere. At one factory—I am not sure whether it started as an advance factory—in the north-west of Scotland, I was told by the industrialist who operates it as a branch of a very big concern that it is the only place in the country where he has no problems of absenteeism or production. There is a great deal to be said for advising industrialists that these somewhat isolated places are very good for industrial de-

velopment and we will see that these views are made known.
All I can say about Chapelcross is that its primary rôle is as a nuclear power station and the Atomic Energy Authority have no plans at present to place any major additional projects there. I will see that the views that have been expressed are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power. I do not think that the Solway barrage is at present a problem for the Board of Trade, but the views that have been expressed on this topic will also be brought to the attention of those concerned.
I have taken note of the remarks that have been made about forestry development and so on in the area. I cannot discuss this matter now, particularly since I cannot speak for the Minister responsible for forestry. This is one of the subjects being discussed by the South-West Economic Planning Consultative Group, and when the views of that body have been made known and its ideas about forestry projects in the area are available, these matters can be discussed with hon. Members and, at that time, we can see to what extent the suggestions put forward can be implemented. If I have not replied to other questions that have been asked during the debate, I will write to the hon. Members concerned.
I assure the House that we are not complacent about the situation in southwest of Scotland. We do all we possibly can to improve industrial development, which is already going on there. We also do all we can to bring new industrial projects to the area. I am hoping—although the percentage of unemployment is high in certain parts of the area, the total number of jobs to be provided is not as great as in some development areas—that we may be able to solve the unemployment problems of the area within a reasonable time.

COTTON TEXTILE INDUSTRY

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Charles Mapp: I welcome my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to this debate. I should inform him at the outset that 5 million people in Lancashire will be listening critically, regardless of their politics, to this debate. I speak not only for myself, but for a number of my hon. Friends whose views I know and who may not be fortunate enough, Mr. Speaker, to catch your eye.
I will begin by briefly reviewing the past, by looking at the present and attempting to look into the future, because it is from the point of view of the future that the policy of my right hon. Friend may be somewhat lacking. There was some buoyancy in the industry of the North-West in 1950. In 1964, it was approaching the stage of near-bankruptcy. In 1967, there is alarm in Lancashire and the industry. These are the important facts to bear in mind.
I have never thought—and I do not think now—that the industry is structurally efficient. There are parts of it which are weak, although there are growing parts which are becoming more and more powerful, strong and efficient in terms of prosperity. The leaders on both sides of industry in the North-West have been permanently soured about the turning down of their case by Governments during the past 10 to 12 years. They are also somewhat sceptical of the efforts of the present Government during the last two or three years.
I say frankly and without reservation that the introduction of global and other quotas and involving certain understandings within the Commonwealth, coupled with the views expressed by the leaders on both sides of the industry, gave the industry the impression that a measure of stability could be expected. The industry gathered from this that it could look forward to the 'seventies with some degree of confidence because it was thought that there would be a reappraisal in the meantime and that something to look forward to would follow. Since July last, for a number of reasons—some national and some because the Board of Trade has been slow and

lacking in diligence in dealing with the problem—there has been cause for grave anxiety.
I can think of no other major industry in the world—I stress "the world" and not just Britain—in which one article in three produced by that industry may be imported from abroad without some sort of barrier or test. That applies to all articles, whether they be shirts or anything else.
We can trace this effect to Ottawa. In 1967, the people of Lancashire are not prepared to allow the Ottawa Agreement of 1930 to govern the future of the textile industry. It is historically true that this is the only industry in which, resulting from Ottawa, the under-developed countries have decided to specialise, and it is the only industry—apart from the jute industry, which may be significant to the President of the Board of Trade—that has to put up with this unbearable chaotic competition from imports moving in like gushing water. No industry can sustain itself in such conditions.
There are great gaps within the present quota system. I have referred to Ottawa, and in that context I have to say that while I respect the 'thirties, I have a great regard for the Commonwealth. We in Lancashire feel that while we are prepared to encourage our underdeveloped Commonwealth countries, that is not to say that this trade in India, Pakistan—and Hong Kong, in particular—a viable part of our Commonwealth is to be developed to the extent of 33 per cent. of the trade of one industry in this country. That is "not on".
It is "not on" for another reason. When considering import arrangements into Britain, we must look also at how much the great America allows to be imported, and how much Germany and France permit to come in. They are all motivated to some extent by a wish to help the under-developed countries, but their imports of textiles show figures of 4 per cent., 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. of their home consumption. We take in about 33⅓ per cent. every year, sometimes with chaotic results for Lancashire.
I am not pleading for wounded soldiers who perhaps deserve to be wounded, but under this Government the industry, up


to July last, had, in regard to their problems, been given certain global arrangements which gave room for development. In the meantime, other factors have supervened. First, we had the national position resulting from the Prime Minister's July statement. I am not expecting the Lancashire textile industry to be excluded from those considerations—it is entitled to take its share in that policy announced by my right hon. Friend.
But then we had the surcharge removed in November, and a fall in consumer demand, and the effect of all three together was to make Lancashire ask, "Where are we? Where do we go from here?" The Lancashire textile industry did not lose hope. It looked forward to the future with confidence and vigour, because it was getting more and more efficient. But what happened? To our dismay, we found that the word "global" did not have its normal meaning. A loophole was found, resulting in a cascade of imports—notably from Portugal, where they were nearly 300 per cent. greater than they were last August.
My colleagues and I alerted the Board of Trade to this state of things last September, and we increased the pressure. One could see the horse bolting from the stable, as it were, and going down the yard and out of sight. In the meantime, some of us, possibly because our patience was beginning to be exhausted, were appealing very strongly for action. The President of the Board of Trade will recall that my colleagues and I saw him two or three times, but in January, even when the flood was at its height, he felt that by means of discussions he could bring pressure to bear on the Portuguese Government to arrest that flow of imports.
Lancashire has still some weeks to put up with the back draught of this flow. In the meantime, I gather my right hon. Friend has been to Stockholm and has been arguing even more with the Portuguese Government about the abnormality and at whose expense it is going on. It is not denied that there is a two-price system in Portugal and that the Portuguese authorities, who have a managed society, are selling the same article to Sweden at a different price than to

Britain. There is price discrimination here.

Mr. J. T. Price: My hon. Friend has referred to Sweden. Is he aware that according to our information a large part of the newly-equipped textile industry in Portugal has been equipped by Swedish capital and supplied by Swedish bankers and financiers?

Mr. Mapp: That is helpful to my argument. I have reason to know that some of the mills in Portugal have been modernised by Swedish money and some which has come from the City of London. I have here a report from Portugal by a friend of mine who has been over there for a fortnight and who is a top man in the textile industry.
I am not persuaded that this six months' cascade could not have been avoided. I regret that it has been allowed to develop and to take so many months before we could persuade the Ministry that this is not on. How do the German Government, the Swedish Government, the French Government, who are within the G.A.T.T., like us, and are part of Europe, put a barrier on excessive imports of this kind? They seem to work with greater diligence in their Boards of Trade than we do in Britain. All I ask is that our Board of Trade should think of Lancashire as well as Hong Kong.
I turn to a diagnosis of the present. Some few weeks ago the President of the Board of Trade got an Order approved in the House for the Textile Council, the old Cotton Board, to have some additional powers. I regret that the Textile Council was not discussed in principle in this House. I regret very much that some of the contributions some of us might have made towards strengthening it have not been implemented. Now I I am told that the Textile Council is to appoint an Imports Commission either with powers greater than the parent body—if anyone can understand that kind of reasoning—or with lesser powers than the parent body.
Let us look at the statement. If the Textile Council has powers greater than the body it will appoint, why appoint a body when it already has those powers? Or are we having, as Lancashire suspects—I say this frankly without reservation—merely a committee of the Textile Council with some high-sounding names?


If that is a fact, on this side of the House 40 or 50 hon. Members from the North-West, whatever the President of the Board of Trade says later this evening, will have to reserve to themselves the right to take the kind of steps that will lie open to them to deal with that kind of thing in future.
The statement of the President of the Board of Trade last week, about the Textile Council Imports Commission, said that it was to keep a watch to analyse the type and source and price in respect of imports. An analysis of price is the one new function, practically the only new function, of this fancy Commission-to-be. It has to help anti-dumping, but can only say what information must be got to prove dumping. This is a triumph in words, but, in fact, it is little or nothing. It is to be a channel between the Board of Trade and the textile industry. What the deuce has the Cotton Board been doing all these years and what is to be done by the Textile Council Imports Commission-to-be?
The trouble has been that this industry, fortunately united in most things through the Textile Council and the Cotton Board, as it was, was united on labour relations and esprit de corps, but the tragedy is that the recommendations have been overlooked by successive Presidents of the Board of Trade. I accept the constitutional right of the President of the Board of Trade to decide such things as ultimate quotas and tariffs. He should realise that the Imports Commission must have teeth. It must be composed not only of people appointed by the Council, but also of independent opinion. I should like it to have access to the price structure of the import of goods at ports. I should like it to be staffed by the Council. Its reports should be made public so that its impartial advice to the President of the Board of Trade can be known to both sides of the House.
If my right hon. Friend thinks that what he said last Tuesday will give comfort to the 40 to 50 Lancashire constituencies, he misunderstands the position. They are prepared to accept the honouring of a cheque which was given in good faith, two or three years ago—given by my colleagues and, not least, by myself. If that cheque was filled in

last Tuesday, we must honour it from assets in the bank. That amounts to giving this body the guts, the power and the teeth to do the job.
The industry rightly expects that its voice on the Imports Commission will be a fair voice, a sound voice, a detached voice, and one which can be properly appreciated by the President of the Board of Trade under whatever Government happen to be in power. It is a voice which should be respected. If my right hon. Friend cannot say that tonight, I, for one, shall be dismayed and shall have to reconsider my view as to how teeth can be injected into the Imports Commission.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the fourth of what may be 16 debates tonight. Many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate. I hope that they will be fair to their companions and speak reasonably briefly.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: It is fortunate for Lancashire and for the House that there are in the House many Members who have a lifetime of experience in the Lancashire textile industry, who know and understand it, and who care about it. The House has just listened with respect to one such Member, the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp). We have respect for the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the industry, for his concern about it, and for the courage with which he has not hesitated to criticise his own Government during recent months when he thought it necessary to do so in the interest of the industry.
I do not have such detailed or technical knowledge or experience, and do not claim it. Accordingly, I shall confine myself to the general rather than to the particular and technical. I shall do my best to adhere to the guidance which you, Mr. Speaker, have just given. The difficulty is not to know what to say, but to know what to leave out, because there is so much to be said about the industry. The difficulty about these long waits is that every half an hour one returns to the Library and adds another two hours to one's notes.
My first point, which I want to make as forcibly as I can following the hon. Gentleman, is that Lancashire is not begging for favours. Some people seem to think that civilisation ends at Watford and that we in Lancashire are a lot of Victorian fuddy-duddies who are living in the past and simply crying for help. They should come and look for themselves, if that is what they think. Of course, we are not all perfect. As the hon. Gentleman said, we have our weaknesses, but the rest of the country could learn something from Lancashire and not least in the matter of willingness to change and in the matter of industrial relations in a rapidly changing economy.
There are two basic considerations which form the background to this debate. The first is that the textile industry is still a great industry which has a contribution to make to the economy of this nation. The second is that, taken as a whole, the industry has fought, is fighting and will fight with vigour against difficulties, the like of which no other manufacturing industry in this country has ever seen—or could even imagine.
If any support were needed for the first proposition, it is to be found in one of the rare accurate statements in the great speech made by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Foreign Secretary, in Manchester on 19th July, 1963, when he said:
We still believe that the British cotton industry has an important contribution to make to the national economy".
Of course it has. It is unnecessary to take time in discussing that. I can here observe your injunction with ease, Mr. Speaker. It is sufficient to say, and it is no exaggeration to say, that ours is an industry which is vital to the nation, both in peace and in war.
As to the second proposition, if anyone doubts the difficulties, let him read any one of the debates in the House over the last 10 years. If anyone doubts the efforts made by the industry, let him look at the brief summary in an article written by Sir Frank Rostron, published in The Times on 10th March; or, better still, let him come to Lancashire and look for himself. We will show him, just as we will show the world, if everybody, including the Government, will just stop knocking us.
Since 1958, output has risen on average by 30 per cent. per head. This House and the nation should pay tribute to all concerned who have achieved that result. I am very happy to pay my tribute to the part played by the unions and operatives in achieving it. It could not have been done without their co-operation and readiness to accept change. Equally—and this is one of the nice things about the industry—the unions and operatives would, I know, pay tribute to the management, which has been prepared to lay out money and discuss these changes with the unions. The change which is going on is very expensive indeed.
As the hon. Member for Oldham, East said, we are not without our black sheep. There were some in the past who would not spend money on re-equipping. But it is not those about whom we are concerned. Most of those have been driven out. If there are any left, they will soon be driven out. What we are deeply concerned about is the fact that it is the highly efficient, modernised mill which is now being driven out.
We are not begging. We are not asking for favours. The industry is doing, and it is ready and willing to continue to do, its share. All that we want is for the Government to honour their pledges, to give us a fair crack of the whip, to wake up to the opportunities of the moment, and to wake up to the fact that if the industry is not given the chance to seize its opportunities, as it wants to do, permanent damage will be done to the industry to the loss of the nation.
There are those who think that the country owes Lancashire a special debt. In a debate in the House, one speaker put it thus:
I have always believed that there is one special reason why we should care about the troubles of Lancashire, and that is the exceptional sacrifice that the Lancashire cotton industry made, both in wartime to release labour for the war effort, and in the years after the war when the industry was rapidly expanding, and, incidentally, taking on a large number of displaced persons from abroad to get immediate exports. At those moments, the country was in need and Lancashire loyally came to its assistance. We should not forget that today."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1958: Vol. 590, c. 986.]
I hope that the President of the Board of Trade recognises those words, because they were his. We do not dissent from those views. We shall be happy to see


the right hon. Gentleman embrace the opportunity he now has to give effect to the noble sentiments he then expressed so freely. But our case is not based on sympathy.
Nor are we alarmist or exaggerating our difficulties. On 28th June, 1962, the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said:
The cotton industry is not walking about with a chip upon its shoulder, as I have seen suggested. It has been caught up in the march of history. Realising that, the Government accepted a special responsibility for the future of the industry, and if they go back on that now there will be great indignation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1962; Vol. 661, c. 1376.]
The right hon. Gentleman was speaking of my Government. But how prophetic of today his words have proved to be!
The Labour Government accepted a special responsibility for the industry, and the industry feels very strongly that they have gone back on it. Let there be no doubt that there is great indignation in all sections of the industry, and in all parts—among management, men and unions alike. If anyone doubts that let him get from someone who was present an account of the meeting of delegates of the unions at Manchester at the end of February. I am credibly informed that it was only because of the respect held for the hon. Member for Oldham, East that he was able to placate some of the fury with his references to the Government's intention to set up a commission. We can only guess from what he has said his, and their disappointment, at what has transpired.
The indignation felt in all parts of the industry is directed at the Government, because the Government have failed in two ways to discharge the responsibility they accepted. First, they have failed to implement what they said they would do. Secondly, during the past seven or eight months they have delivered the industry a series of kicks in the teeth, to which I shall refer later.
In the result, the Government have produced an acute, a grave, crisis of confidence, the importance of which cannot be over-estimated. Whatever else Ministers on the Front Bench may feel tonight, I beg them not to underestimate it. It was expressed in very moderate

terms in Tattersall's Trade Review for last month, in these words:
Few recent periods in the industry have witnessed such a sustained lack of confidence as in the opening weeks of the current year.
Since then the position has got much worse, and my postbag contains much more lurid descriptions. I venture to think that hon. Members on both sides have had similar experience.
That is disastrous, because the Government's main job is to engender confidence, and that is what we look for from them. We shall do the rest. Instead of doing that, they have destroyed confidence, and destroyed it at a vital stage in the reorganisation and re-equipment of the industry.
Now the industry is asking itself three questions. Do the Government and the Board of Trade really understand our problem? Do they really care about them? And even if the answer to both those questions is "Yes", are they either competent or willing to do anything about them? We doubt whether they understand, because we find it difficult to believe that anyone who does understand the problems could do what has been done. For the same reason, we find it difficult to believe that the Government care. We doubt their competence and willingness for a number of reasons.
I know that many back benchers opposite do understand and care. Our concern, however, is whether the Government and the Board of Trade care. Do they understand the fundamental changes that are taking place? Do they understand that we are engaged in something much bigger than a mere contraction to a viable size? Are they aware of the technological advances—break-through would not be an exaggeration, in many cases—which have taken place over the last five years or so, and which are completely changing the face of the industry? Do they realise how rapidly it is changing to a capital intensive from a labour-intensive industry?
Do the Government understand what an upheaval all this entails for the operatives and what an expenditure it entails for the managements? Do they realise how far the industry has got along that road? Do they realise how important it is to the country that the transition should be completed and completed quickly? Do


they understand that it is the one chance for the industry to make itself more competitive? Do they appreciate that it is some of the people who are taking the lead in that most important transition—with some of the most modern and recently equipped mills—who are now being driven out of the industry?
There is nothing in recent events to give us any confidence that either the Board of Trade or the Government do understand these facts. And further, do they understand that while such restriction on imports as there is achieves some purpose, it does not guarantee to the home producer any given quantity or even any fixed proportion of the home market? The way it works in practice is that the importers are guaranteed their quotas and the home producers are simply left with the balance of demand, whatever it may be, with the result that, when the total demand falls, it is always the home producers who "carry the can".
We are tired of being told that these quotas are adequate protection. Surely we have learnt by experience that, while they give very good protection to importers, they are not nearly so good for us.
The hon. Member for Oldham, East referred to the loopholes in the existing arrangements. Do the Government even yet not realise the immense disruptive effect of a flood of low-cost imports coming in over a short period? It might not be quite so bad if they were even spread over the year. Do the Government realise that every one of these floods coming in over a short period drives people out of business? They cannot keep going in face of such floods. The operatives will not stay in an industry where they are always subject to being put on short time; and it is the best ones who tend to leave because they feel that there is not much of a future and not much reason for staying in the industry. The better and more expensively equipped the mill may be, the less it can afford to stay open unless it is actually working all the time. Do the Government not realise that, every time one of these mills closes, it is a permanent loss to the industry and to the productive capacity of the country making us even more dependent on imports in the future?
Those are just a few of the questions which spring to mind and prompt us to doubt whether the Government understand our problems. We doubt it, and that is one of the major reasons for the dramatic loss of confidence over the past seven or eight months.
Recently, we had a visit from the Minister of State to Manchester. I must tell him that my information is that it did little, if anything, to allay the doubts or fears. Further, last week, we had a statement from the President of the Board of Trade, and I must tell him frankly that large sections of the industry are, at any rate as yet, not persuaded that that was anything more than a lot of hot air.
However, the cause of our doubts goes much deeper than those two single instances. It springs from a comparison of the words and deeds of the Government over a period of years, and I want to take up a little time in looking at them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope that no one in the House under-estimates the importance of this subject and thinks that it is something which should be treated lightly or rushed through.
There are still those in the House who will recall the little maestro's "Plan for Cotton". We were lectured on it frequently, and told that it would solve all the problems; as soon as Labour returned to power, it would swing into action with this plan. The theme was repeated over and over. Powerful speeches were made in support of it by some of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues who are now in his Cabinet.
May I just refer to two of them? In the debate on 28th June, 1962 the right hon. Lady who is now Minister of Transport, and whom I am happy to see on the Government Front Bench tonight, had this to say:
It is crying for the moon for us to say to Lancashire. 'Reorganise your structure by 'verticalisation'. Emergency action is needed, and the emergency action that I call for is for the Government without delay to set up a Government-sponsored import commission with the duty of supervising all the import trading in cotton textiles. It will then release those controlled imports, including generous levels of imports from the Asian countries, on to the home market at prices which take account of the needs and the costs of production both at home and of our imported textiles, and at prices which do not have a disruptive effect on the industry." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1962; Vol. 661, c. 1466.]


On 1st July, 1963, the right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister of Housing and Local Government said:
The fourth necessity, I am certain, is for the kind of cotton import commission which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition suggested in the Wilson plan five years ago—a commission which will regulate the flow of cotton imports and determine import prices. That is the only form of machinery which will stop the merchants who are at present sabotaging the Lancashire textile industry from continuing to destroy it for their own miserable private profits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1963; Vol. 680, c. 141.]
That was stirring stuff; those were fine words. No doubt many hon. Gentlemen on the back benches who were here then believed in those statements. No doubt hundreds of thousands of voters in Lancashire believed the assurances which they had had from these important members of the party opposite that such firm and positive action would be taken. Where, one might ask, has all that resolution gone? Gone with the wind, if it was ever anything more than wind.
Then we had the right hon. Gentleman, now the Foreign Secretary, making his great speech at Manchester on 19th July, 1963. Quite often doubts have been expressed about the precise words that he used, and I shall therefore confine myself to the Transport House news release of what he said. He called for four things:
First, we must ensure that other advanced countries take their share of low cost textile imports",
and in his closing address at the Cotton Board conference in October, 1965, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will recall that he used even stronger words and said in substance:
It is intolerable that we should have to take this large proportion when others take such a small proportion.
Fine words, but we are still waiting for the action to follow them.
The Foreign Secretary also said:
A Cotton Council must be established to advise, supervise, and where necesary regulate imports of cotton goods into the United Kingdom.
Again, fine words, and we are still waiting for the action. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
Thirdly, there is a need for a greater measure of planning in the industry.

Never has the industry found it more difficult to plan ahead than in the conditions created by this Government.
Those were the pledges, and now let us look at the performance against which those pledges must be measured. The hon. Member for Oldham, East has referred to the global quotas which turned out not to be global quotas. What we have discovered is that there are many loopholes in them. They make no provision for the spreading of the timing of the flow of imports, and nothing has as yet been achieved in persuading other countries to take a greater share of the load of imports.
That is the negative side, the failure of the Government to do the things which they said they were going to do.
On the positive side, what I referred to earlier as the kicks in the teeth delivered to the industry, may I just mention three effects of the squeeze. First, it was intended to produce, and did produce, a contraction in the size of the home market. Who carries the can there? It is the home producer in this as in every other instance. Secondly, the idea was to create a climate of economy which increased even further the tendency to buy the low cost imports at the expense of the home producer's product. Thirdly, the high rates of interest made it not only virtually impossible to go on with the re-equipping and reorganising which so many people wanted to do, and had started, but made it even more difficult for them to keep their mills open when there was no work for them to do. Then, as the hon. Gentleman said, on top of all that they removed the surcharge.
Anybody in the industry could have told the Board of Trade and the Government what the combined effect of all those things would be, and yet they were done without any steps being taken to safeguard the industry from the consequences. The importers are all right because they have their quotas giving them their guaranteed proportion of the home market. The burden fell, and fell heavily, as always, on the home producer.
We believe that those are the principal factors which have caused—

Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order. I draw attention to the fact that for some minutes there has not been anybody on the Treasury Bench taking notes on this


debate. I hope that at no time during this debate will that bench be empty of the responsible Minister who should take note of everything that is said during the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Percival: I am, nevertheless, obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his comments.
These are the main reasons for the dramatic loss of confidence during the last seven or eight months. They were foreseeable, but nothing was done: hence the fury in the industry.
The hon. Member for Oldham, East has said sufficiently forcibly everything which needs to be said about the Commission. We hope that it will achieve something and will do all we can to that end, but we must make two swingeing criticisms. First, if it is of any use why was it not appointed last July, when these dire consequences of the Government's measures could have been foreseen? Secondly, it must have some teeth. The hon. Member for Oldham, East pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman's first proposal adds nothing to what is being done.
On the hon. Member's proposal about advising on anti-dumping applications, I am reminded of the comments of the right hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) in the debate to which I referred, where he said
Lastly, I suggest that we must tighten up the anti-dumping machinery …
It is absurd that the industry should have to prove that dumping exists, that it is disrupting the industry and that it will be to the national interest to stop the dumping before it is possible to get the President of the Board of Trade to act. The responsibility for acting must be accepted fairly and squarely by the right hon. Gentleman."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1963; Vol. 680, c. 141.]
This should not be fobbed off on a Commission, but dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman's experts. I agreed then with the words I quoted, and I agree with them now.
Thirdly, the Commission is supposed to advise on tariffs and import controls. If there are some that can be used, why have they not already been used? Why should they have to be discussed by a

Commission? What bothers us most is that there is no reference to the power to regulate held out as the carrot for so long. When Australia senses trouble it closes the ports and inquires afterwards. When Norway was in trouble with Portugal, it immediately appointed an international jurist to sort it out.
No wonder the industry is not convinced that the Commission will do any good. One cynical view is that it is just another channel for the right hon. Gentleman's rejection of advice. But is this cynicism to be wondered at when we compare the Government's performance with their previous pontifications and pledges? First, the apparently firm proposals of the maestro in 1955, then the slightly watered down version of Manchester, 11th July, 1963, and now the Commission, watered down so much that it is impossible to detect the slightest hint of whisky in the water.
Is it any wonder that there is a lack of confidence and seething indignation? We shall, no doubt, be told that Portugal has been dealt with and that everything will be fine soon; that de-stocking will soon start to be reversed and things will get better. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not try to fob us off with that sort of honey.
Lancashire is in no mood to be patted on the head by teacher and told to go away and be quiet because everything will be fine soon. We need positive action, and quickly, or very serious and permanent damage will be done to the industry—and, as a result, the nation will suffer. On 30th June, 1958, the right hon. Gentleman wound up a debate on the textile industry for the then Opposition and said:
This debate has certainly shown three things very clearly. First. Lancashire's whole economic life is threatened by the present volume of textile imports. Secondly, everyone with knowledge of Lancashire's problem believes that something energetic and urgent ought to he done. Thirdly, no one who is off the Front Bench … is satisfied with what the Government are doing".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1958; Vol. 590, c. 989.]
I commend those sentiments to the right hon. Gentleman for his serious perusal, now that he is President of the Board of Trade. Whether or not those remarks were true or not then, they are surely true now. Lancashire is tired of words. Give us action, action which will


match the action which Lancashire itself has taken, is taking and will take. Give us action or clear out. That is the message that Lancashire sends to the Government tonight.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn: I am glad to have this opportunity to voice the views of Cheshire, although I assure hon. Members that my remarks will not be as boring or as long as those of the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). My hon. Friends will have been amazed at the arrogance of the hon. and learned Gentleman in coming here tonight when we have no recollection of his having taken part in a debate on this subject when the Tory Administration assisted in the death throes of the industry.

Mr. Percival: Mr. Percival rose—

Mr. Blackburn: No. Sit down. I am not giving way.
I find it difficult to speak with moderation about the repeated crises which have occurred in the textile industry and the way in which the industry has been treated by successive Governments. Today, the industry is really angry, because it expected so much more from a Labour Government. The textile industry is still of great importance in my constituency, although we have a more diversified industrial structure than we had before the war.
The contraction of the industry has not taken place without causing human problems and misery. Fortunately, the published figures show unemployment as being less severe than in some parts of the country, but one must consider how this has been brought about. Many married women have been lost to the industry and there has been much migration to other parts of the country. Although we have a large overspill population, the present population is about the same as it was in 1951. These facts give some indication of what has been happening.
After the war we were begging people to return to the industry. Hon. Members will remember the slogan, "Britain's bread hangs on Lancashire's thread". Then a flood of cheap imports started coming in. Before the war we had been used to recessions as we lost much of

our overseas trade because many other countries were developing their textile industries. The position was to be different, but it was not. We started to lose our home market. We had crisis after crisis and after each one we started off again on a lower level.
I have always maintained that to kill our own industry is not the sensible way to help other countries. We have borne the burden long enough. If our policy is to help other countries, it is time we found other ways of doing it, and relieved the textile industry of some of the load. Limitation of imports from India, Pakistan and Hong Kong only seems to have opened the floodgates to imports from other countries. They need not scour the world to find an outlet for their exports. It is a case of, "Send the stuff to Britain, where they do not mind killing their own industry."
It is no help if Ministers make sympathetic noises when they are repeatedly told by their advisers that this is not possible and that is not possible. If international agreements mean the ruin of our own industry, there is something wrong with the international agreements and we should either repudiate them or give notice that they must be renegotiated.
We are told that as members of E.F.T.A. we cannot do anything about Portuguese sheeting imports, but I am informed that Norway and Sweden have no such difficulty. What I find annoying about the situation is that if there is any reduction of Portuguese imports, it will not be by effective Government action, but by the kindness of the Portuguese.
If, at one time, there was criticism of complacency in the industry, that is not now the case. It is highly efficient and the best are equal to any. We can compete on equal terms with any other industry, anywhere in the world. It is no good saying that there is the same difference between American wages and ours as between ours and those of the Portuguese. Even if it were true, the conditions are not the same. America has a large home market and is not subject to a comparable flood of cheap imports.
Unless something is done, sheeting will go the way that other sections of the industry have gone. Everyone in the


industry is convinced that dumping is taking place. Is anything done? No. We are told that there must be material injury to the industry as a whole, so one section after another can be and is being lopped off.
Somewhere in the Board of Trade there is a comparison of United Kingdom sheeting processes, prepared by Ashton Brothers, a firm in my constituency, to support the Lancashire case against Portuguese imports.
That is a quotation from a letter I sent to the Board of Trade on 21st February, enclosing a letter from the managing director. In the reply I received on 10th March, the only reference to the whole letter was, "I was interested to read his further comments." That information is somewhere in the pigeonholes of the Board of Trade.
I am also awaiting a reply to the letter I sent after the debate on the Textile Council Order. In that debate, I quoted a statement that when a delegation visited the Board of Trade about Portuguese sheeting they were told that if they could not manufacture sheeting in competition with Portugual they had better stop manufacturing it.
At the request of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, I sent the Department a letter containing the statement. Since then, silence. Perhaps it is one of those cases where an official has told the Minister that he need not feel like replying. I think that the Minister of State will be able to inform the President of the Board of Trade of the relevance of that reference.
The position is so serious that the Government must either be honest and say, "We have written you off", or they must take some effective action to help. What has happened so far? We have a global quota which is far too high; it is not giving the industry a chance. We are now to have an Import Commission, with no effective powers. I cannot see that the position is very different from what it was before, and the industry is certainly not satisfied.
When the problem of Indian imports was to the fore, a well-known Member of this House said:
If a settlement of the problem of Indian imports cannot be reached by negotiations between representatives of the industries of the two countries, a Government Imports

Commission should be set up to be responsible for all imports of cotton yarns and piece goods.
I should like to stress the last few words:
… a Government Imports Commission should be set up to be responsible for all imports of cotton yarns and piece goods.
In 1963, another well-known Member of the House said:
A Cotton Commission must be established to advise, supervise and, where necessary, regulate imports of cotton goods into the United Kingdom.
They are both Members of influence in the present Government. Why the change in view? Ours has not changed.
We need, and have a right to expect, effective help from the Government. We are no longer content to be the worst-treated industry in the world. We can no longer submit to the distortion of the industry by the present flood of imports. We expect Government action to deal with dumping even against a section of the industry. We want an Import Commission which has power to act, power to put the interests of our own industry first. We want another look at international agreements which may be working to our disadvantage. If these things are not done, God help us, because nothing can save the industry from further closures. And if that happens, we had better join the fashion and demand Home Rule for the North-West, and start a North-West National Party.

11.13 p.m.

Sir Frank Pearson: I am sure that both sides of the House are extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) for having initiated this debate.
It is quite scandalous that a subject of this importance should have to be debated on this Bill, and at this time of night. We are debating it in these circumstances for the sole reason that the Government, through the Leader of the House, have flatly and completely refused to allocate any Government time at all to debate this extremely important topic. I only wish that after the debate we could test opinion in the Division Lobbies. It might be a good thing for the Prime Minister that we cannot, because I am quite certain that he would again have a little local licensing difficulty. But we are having the debate,


and we must be grateful for the opportunity of expressing our views.
For about 50 years now the Lancashire textile industry has been contracting, but men who have spent a lifetime in the industry will say, one after another, that never in their experience has there been a time like the present, when confidence has been so completely undermined, and when the industry has a very real and genuine feeling that unless something effective is done, and done soon, we may as well face the fact that Lancashire will, in future, not have a textile industry that one can call an industry at all.
If one casts one's mind back a few years one will remember the difficulties that we had in 1959 and in the early 1960s. One recollects the great reorganisation scheme that was initiated by the Conservative Government with the assistance of Government funds. One will recollect that at that time a quota was brought in on Commonwealth imports, and that at a later stage a degree of categorisation was introduced.
I would like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the manner in which the Lancashire textile industry used that modernisation scheme. It did an enormous job in re-equipment and modernisation. Many people hoped at that time that it would get the industry righted; that it would get it organised and properly equipped, and that when that had been done it would have been able to compete on equal terms with all comers.
Unfortunately, that has not happened. During the past year we have seen no fewer than 70 textile mills close down. Some of them might well have been due for closure, but many of them were modern mills, equipped under the 1959 scheme, selling branded goods through their own trade outlets. When that type of mill closes down and pays off its workpeople, then it is high time that the President of the Board of Trade inquired closely into what is happening.
One of the bitterest criticisms I would wish to make against the Government in this issue is that for over a year now these mills have been closing and absolutely nothing whatsoever has been done to try to give the industry support uitil the other day, when we had the right

hon. Gentleman's statement, a statement that has spread even greater disillusion in Lancashire than we had before.
I think that the word "disillusion" is particularly apposite to the present circumstances. No one can accuse the Conservatives of having made wild promises with regard to the textile industry; we were too well aware of the difficulties to do that. But that does not stop the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends making promises, and it is because those promises were made before the 1964 and 1966 elections that there is this bitterness and deep disillusion in Lancashire today.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport alluded to a speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary. I can show it to the House in its original form. It was issued from Transport House and at the top of it there were the words "Cotton and its Future, a reprint of the speech by the right hon. George Brown, M.P., Deputy Leader of the Labour Party at Manchester on July 19, 1963." This was in the period running up to the election, just in time to attract all those votes that it was meant to attract.
It was these promises made to Lancashire close to the two elections that gave Labour many of the seats that they at present hold. I believe there is a moral responsibility resting on the shoulders of the right hon. Gentleman to see that the promises made at that time are now fulfilled.
My hon. and learned Friend has mentioned already the four points that were laid out by the Foreign Secretary, and I would point out that the heading on that particular part of the speech was, "Urgent Requirements". These requirements were urgent in 1963, yet no action whatsoever has been taken up till the other day, and even that is nothing more than window-dressing.
There is the question of action under the G.A.T.T. to ensure that other countries take a greater share of imports. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, when he was negotiating under the G.A.T.T., got some slight amelioration of this matter, but I have never heard of any further approach being made under the G.A.T.T. If any further approach has been made, I have not heard of any results flowing from it.


I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will tell us exactly what result he has had in getting other members of the G.A.T.T. to take a larger share of the exports from developing countries.
There was an absolutely categorical promise in this speech in regard to the Imports Commission. It was that it was especially to
advise, supervise, and, where necessary regulate, imports".
It was a specific promise of specific powers resting in the hands of the Commission. That, of course, appealed to the industry. It appealed to all Lancashire people connected with the industry and they took it to be a solemn promise. It was that promise which the right hon. Gentleman purported the other day to fulfil when he produced this scheme to the House for a sub-committee of the Textile Council with no powers any greater than those exercised by the old Cotton Board.
When the right hon. Gentleman made the announcement, I asked what his attitude was to import quotas. I asked him not to close his mind to a reduction of these quotas if he was so advised by the Commission. The answer he gave the House was that all those quotas are fixed right up to the 1970s and no alteration can be made. If so, what is the use of setting up this Commission? It is nothing more than window-dressing.
There are three things which the industry would wish the Commission to be able to do. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he wishes to fulfil the election promises, to consider most seriously giving the Commission these powers. It would not be impossible for him to do so, but if he gives less, or gives nothing more, a very heavy moral responsibility will rest on his shoulders. The first power he must give the Commission is power to scrutinise consignments at the ports and power to hold up those consignments while considering whether their price is a fair price.
The right hon. Gentleman must also give the Commission power to issue licences on a quarterly and not an annual basis so that imports may be rationalised and even over the 12 months. So long as we leave the quota on an annual basis we are bound to get disruption of trade.

Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman must give it power to hold up consignments which purport to come from one country, but are known, in fact, to come from another. Give the Commission these powers and it would be a Commission with a reasonable hope of success. If the Government refuse to do so, then Lancashire will take it that that Commission is nothing more than eye-wash.
We all know how difficult the question of Portugal is. We know that the right hon. Gentleman has been striving to get a voluntary agreement, but he has refused to tell us what that voluntary agreement is. I cannot understand why he will not tell us. When the Conservative Government got a voluntary agreement with Portugal, they told the House what that agreement was. I understand that other E.F.T.A. countries have been able to come to agreements with Portugal. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman is being so coy. If he does not tell us what it is I can only assume that the agreement is a peripheral one and not worth much.
Apart from the question of a voluntary agreement, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has considered the question of action under the E.F.T.A. agreement? Under Article 5, when imports into one E.F.T.A. country escalate rapidly, certain specific powers are given to the importing country to protect their own industry where that industry is adversely affected.
There is also Article 20, which deals with unfair trade. People who know about Portugal's trade know that wage rates there are about one-sixth of the wage rates in this country. They know perfectly well that the conditions under which labour works would not be accepted here for a minute. Have we inquired into child labour? What are the conditions of child labour in Portugal? What about safety precautions? Are we assured that they are at the same level as in this country. These are vitally important questions if we are to go into the Common Market. Unless we can establish fair trade we will be up against the sort of problems that the Lancashire textile industry is up against at the present time. Has the President of the Board of Trade inquired closely into these matters?
We can argue about textiles and about what should be done and what powers should be given, but let us not forget that every time a mill closes there is a human problem. Every time the question of unemployment is raised the Government of the day say that the figure for unemployment is so much and that there is no real cause for worry. Every time the Treasury Bench forgets that a high proportion of the women who are employed in the textile mills are not registered, and not registered, very often, on the advice of their unions. That means only one thing: the official unemployment figures are not a real indication of the hardships that are occurring.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look closely at this and try to get some figures that will indicate what the closure of the mills means in terms of human hardship for women workers and elderly people. If a man is put out of a mill at 60 he is unlikely to get any more work.
There is a degree of bitterness and disillusionment in Lancashire such as I have never known, and I went through the 1961 and 1962 business on the Government side of the House. The disillusionment then was nothing to what it is today. I have asked the right hon. Gentleman to give us an assurance tonight that he will take action to ensure that the Government's pledges are fulfilled.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Thornton: This industry, over the last half-century, has suffered more trials and tribulations, more insecurity, more self-sacrifice and suffering, than probably any other large-scale British industry. It has gone through very trying times, both in the days of the mass unemployment of the 1920s and 1930s and in the days of relatively full employment in the postwar years. It has shown remarkable resilience. I do not think any other industry could have been so resilient in such disadvantageous circumstances.
I, like other hon. Members, no doubt, have spent all my working life in the industry or in close association with it. My experience goes back to the closing months of the First World War. It was then said that Lancashire produced for the home market in the two hours be-

fore breakfast and for the markets of the four corners of the world in the remaining eight hours of the day. I have seen the industry change from being the world's greatest exporter of cotton textiles to the world's greatest importer of cotton textiles.
Much of our present difficulty stems from this transformation. I went through the period of the contraction and unemployment of the 1920s. We lost the great China market and the even greater Indian market. I went through the even greater sufferings of the 1930s, when we faced cut-throat Japanese competition in the overseas markets, where the Japanese earned foreign currency at any cost to pay for their war preparations. Then we had the wartime concentration of the industry.
I remind the Government of the particular responsibility they have for the industry. During the post-war period the Labour Government built the industry up to a level which it was not reasonable to expect it to sustain. During the war, before I was a Member of the House, I served on the Post-War Problems Committee of the Cotton Board. The assessment then made was that in the post-war period the industry would be able to sustain only about 200,000 people. In the event—I am not complaining about this; I think that it was necessary in the economic circumstances which confronted us in the post-war period—the industry was rebuilt to a level of 350,000 workers. It was from that level that the decline has set in. The textile workers made an enormous contribution to Britain's economic survival in the postwar years and the Labour Government, who used them for that purpose, have a particular responsibility towards them today.
What are the causes of this slump? I agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) that primarily, but not wholly, they stem from the July measures—the high Bank Rate, the ending of the 10 per cent. import surcharge, and the ending of the E.F.T.A. duties. All these factors combined in the late autumn and caused a slump which went deeper and came faster than any I have known. It was accelerated by the pent-up flood of imports which came in late last year and early this year.
The position was ably dealt with by a correspondent in The Times on 20th February last, who wrote:
The plain fact is that the total volume of permitted imports has been pitched so high that in a period of recession the burden becomes too much for the industry to bear. In their present mood the unions will demand proof of the Government's good faith".
Hence the lack of confidence and the anger among the operatives of Lancashire against a flood of low-priced cotton imports.
About 60 mills have closed during the last 12 months and the staggering total of 1,000 have closed in Lancashire and the textile area of Cheshire since 1951—that is, 1,000 in 16 years. It is against this background that the industry has shown a remarkable resilience in a period of rapid contraction. I agree without hesitation that while more than half of these closures are due to rationalisation and concentration making for more efficient units, and the expansion of multiple shift working, I also agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Clitheroe and my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) when they say that the most disturbing feature is that modern standards have been operating in some of these mills, along with the shift system.
This represents a tragic waste of capital resources, to say nothing about the skilled manpower. The latest closure is in the spinning section of Dunlop Textiles, a subsidiary of the Dunlop Rubber Company. I have been in close contact with that mill for 38 years, and I can tell the House that this was a modern plant, operating three shifts on mass production, selling competitively in the open market. Yet it has been decided that it is not profitable to continue spinning in present conditions in Lancashire. This is really disturbing, for if this spinning unit cannot survive which can?
I ask the Minister seriously to ponder this, for we are having a number of closures of mills which are modern and efficient by any standards. Some have been re-equipped under the Act of 1959, which aimed at a compact, streamlined, and efficient cotton industry in Lancashire. In one specific case, if the circumstances were not so tragic, they would be Gilbertian. It is anticipated that the likely purchaser of the modern machinery

will be the United States, because cotton spinning mills in the States have now discovered, a few years late, that this system, operated in Lancashire, on a limited range of Counts, is the most efficient known at the present time.
Until recently, it could be alleged, and with truth, that the industry from the point of view of organisation and equipment, was somewhat obsolete. Yet that is no longer true. We have International Viyella, Courtaulds, Ashton Brothers Holdings, English Sewing Cotton, and others, organised on what are known as vertical lines to produce from the raw cotton to the finished product.
But some very strange things are happening. The industry is being forced back on to a horizontally organised structure. There are still many individual weaving units. They cannot compete against the low-priced imports. They buy low-priced imported yarn. This compels the vertical firm to close down, or to put on short-time its spinning department, and to buy imported low-priced cotton yarn in an attempt to compete. Even then, some of them do not succeed. Sometimes the finished cloth is imported and finished made-up material is packaged and sold under their own brand name so that they may keep in business. This is a chaotic situation which cannot be tolerated.
I come to three points on current Government policy. The global quota received a qualified welcome from the industry last year. The industry pointed out—and events have, I think, proved it to be correct—that the global overall quota was pitched at least 10 per cent. too high. But the industry admitted and recognised that for the first time a ceiling on low-cost imports was established.
Page 24 of the Annual Report for the year ending 5th April this year of the British Cotton Spinners and Doublers Association states:
 The arrangements outlined above"—
that is, the quota arrangements—
represent an advance on previous import control arrangements, particularly since any new low cost supplying country would have to participate in the global quota".
I do not think we should under-estimate the importance of that arrangement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
I come to the Cotton Imports Committee. There can be no doubt that


the industry is convinced that it is inadequate and that the powers and functions of a Cotton Imports Commission as indicated by the Foreign Secretary went much further than the proposals put forward by the President of the Board of Trade. When the present Foreign Secretary spoke in Manchester in July, 1963, he spoke with the full authority of the Labour Party.
My third point is on Government orders. The industry and the operatives believe that the Government are being too partial and are swinging towards placing more orders for cheaper imported textiles. I agree that, with the global quota, a different situation arises. In so far as the Government and public authorities enter into the purchasing of these cheaper imported textiles, they are not adding to the total which is imported. But if all buyers, including the Government and public bodies, go first to the low priced imports, then, in effect, the Lancashire industry will be the residual legatee. At least one efficient mill of which I know has closed primarily because it ceased to get any Government contracts, although it had a long record, going back 50 or 60 years, of fulfilling Government contracts for drills for the Armed Forces.
I urge the Government to reconsider their policies. Whatever the difficulties, I hope that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will look again at the global quota. Is it not too high, since 30 per cent. of our home market is supplied by low-priced imports, whereas only from 3 to 7 per cent. are taken by other advanced countries, as was indicated earlier in the debate? The 30 per cent. level causes great price disruption and often makes production unprofitable in our industry. With the lower level, the other advanced countries, such as the United States, France, Italy and Germany avoid serious price disruption.

Sir Douglas Glover: The point about the global quota, also, is that if it is fixed at the time of a boom the 30 per cent. becomes nearer 50 per cent. if there is a recession. That is half the trouble from which the industry is now suffering.

Mr. Thornton: I take the point. When a recession comes its full weight falls on the restricted capacity of the industry, and

that goes first. The higher the level of imports becomes, the deeper the recession and perhaps the longer it is likely to last.
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the proposed Imports Commission will be used as an effective machine for dealing promptly with price disruption and quota evasion? Let us face it—other countries do it somehow. A way can be devised for us to do what they do.

Mr. Mapp: And do it better.

Mr. Thornton: And perhaps do it better, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) says.
Will the Government give an assurance that, in the main, Government contracts for cotton textiles will stipulate that they shall be spun, woven and finished in the United Kingdom? I do not say that all Government purchases should necessarily be from our own source; a case can be made out for a small proportion to be of imported cheaper fabrics.
Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Coe) about Portuguese imports, on 14th March, is not to be taken too literally? He said:
I have every reason to expect that imports from Portugal during the coming year will be at a lower level than they have been in recent months."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 238.]
What does he mean by "recent months"? If we take the four months, September to January, the imports from Portugal work out at a rate of 54 million square yards per year, as against 32 million for last year. Therefore, my right hon. Friend's hopes could be fulfilled on Portuguese imports in 1967 running at a rate of 50 per cent. higher than the high level of last year. I hope that he will clear up that point.
Will the Government also give serious consideration to the imposition of import duties on Commonwealth cotton textiles? I know that that is rather sacrilege, but let us appreciate that if or when we enter the European Economic Community we shall have to face up to that problem. Why not face up to it now? It could be argued that that would be damaging to the developing countries, particularly Hong Kong, India and Pakistan. India and Pakistan face great problems. But


surely we could refund as grants in aid what was raised by the duties imposed upon these imports. Such duties would contribute to solving the problem of serious price disruption.
Why should we have the position where Canada, whose per capita income is probably approaching double our own, is able to send cotton textiles to Britain free of duty whereas our cotton textile exports to Canada attract duty? This is grossly unfair and it should be ended, particularly since, for years, we have had a very serious adverse balance of trade with Canada. For several years, Canadian exports to Britain have been more than double our exports to Canada.

Sir D. Glover: And there is a lot of substitution.

Mr. Thornton: And there is a lot of substitution. We import from Canada about 39 million square yards and Canada imports from Hong Kong and India an amount equal to about three-quarters or two-thirds of this total. There is a very serious risk of substitution and many people believe that it is taking place.
I urge the Government to oblige the Board of Trade to take some reasonable risk. I am sure that there would be but little repercussion. Textile industries throughout the world are astonished at the way our industry is being run down. Governments throughout the world are aware of the extent to which the Lancashire cotton textile industry has been sacrificed in the national economic interest—although whether it works out that way I am doubtful. There is a strong and angry feeling in Lancashire that the Board of Trade, since 1951, has written off this industry. The history of the last 15 years, and of the last 2½ years especially, does not disprove this belief. If other advanced countries, such as the United States, West Germany, France and Italy, had run down their cotton textile industries in the interests of the national economy, and if they had replaced them by science and technology based industries, we would have had to accept the position as inevitable change in the pattern of industry in an inevitably changing world. But that has not happened. They have, on the contrary, sustained in the national interest their cotton textile industries.
If we could show that, by running down our cotton textile industry—as other industrial nations have not done—we had a tremendous vitality in the rest of our industrial economy, it could be justified on that ground. But we cannot justify it on that ground, because our economic rate of growth has been inferior to that of the United States, France, Germany and Italy in the period to which I am referring.
On many occasions during the last 14 years I have addressed the House on the problems of this once very great industry with which my life has been so closely interwoven, an industry which, with coal, was the foundation of Britain's industrial and commercial greatness. Notwithstanding the emotional stress I feel, I have always tried to speak, whether now or from the Opposition back benches or the Opposition Front Bench, with moderation and restraint—too much so in the opinion of the people I represent.
Tonight, I speak with more than usual suppressed emotion. What is at stake is a breach of faith by a party and a Government for which I have worked all my adult life. To me, the real test of their sincerity and honour towards this industry and its fine stoic workers will be the effectiveness of the Imports Commission. If the President of the Board of Trade accepts and implements the reasonable recommendations of the Commission, the honour of the Government and the party in Lancashire can be retrieved. But if he uses the Commission merely as the old Cotton Board Imports Committee under another name, I shall not hesitate to expose the Government for being guilty of an attempted unpardonable deception, of which I shall have no part.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has referred to the serious situation in the textile industry. As the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) has said, the disillusion and suspicion which is rife in Lancashire results from the slick promises which were given to the industry and which the Government now find that they are unable to meet.
Looking at the position today, with the closing recently of several well-equipped modern mills, the really serious matter is that it should happen at a


time during the five-year period when the global quota was brought in to give to the industry a period of stability, and at the end of which the industry was supposed to be streamlined and capable of competing.
No one can say that the industry has not taken advantage of the reorganisation scheme. The amount of capital invested in the industry has gone up tremendously. Productivity in the industry, with a smaller labour force, has increased by something like a third over recent years. Despite that, still there are closures of well-equipped modern mills. The real danger is that the effect will be that investment which has been coming into cotton recently will dry up, and the modernisation of the remaining mills will not take place.
It is easy to pinpoint the causes of the trouble. One is that, as a country, we are still taking far too great a share of low-priced imports from the developing countries. On top of that, we are now taking substantial imports from Portugal, unaffected by quota and completely duty-free.
It would be foolish to pretend that there is any simple answer to the problems of the industry. I accept that we have a duty to the developing countries to see that, as a fully developed industrial country, we take a fair share of the imports of those countries. But if, as the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) said at the beginning of the debate, one remembers that we are taking something like a third of the country's consumption of textile goods in imports from those countries, whereas the penetration of those goods into the countries of the European Economic Community is something in the region of 4½ per cent., it can hardly be said that those countries are taking their fair share of imports from developing countries.
Of course, there is bitterness when the present First Secretary puts the first of his points to Lancashire about the need to encourage other countries to take a greater share of the imports of developing countries, and we find that nothing has been done.
On top of that there is the problem of Portugal. The real problem of the textile industry is that, faced as it is with the general drying up of trade which has

followed upon the Government's July measures, and faced with the removal of the 10 per cent. surcharge, it is finding a flood of imports coming into this country at a time when the market as a whole is contracting. The only offer of assistance that we have had from the Government is the recently appointed Import Commission, a miserable mouse if ever there was one, allegedly as a means of honouring the pledge given in 1963 by the now Foreign Secretary as a means of regulating imports.
I go further than saying that the Commission is a miserable mouse. What worries me is that in many ways if it is not to have the teeth which are required it could be a danger to the industry, because it could give the impression that something was being done, when, in fact, nothing was being done at all.
As many hon. Members want to speak, I propose to suggest four things which could be done to assist the industry. First, we should give the new Commission more powers, and powers—and I say no more than this—other than those referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson).
Secondly, we should review the existing licensing system so as to change over from annual licences to quarterly licences. This would spread out the imports into this country. This point, too,—though I do not think this has been mentioned during this debate—was made by the now Foreign Secretary during his speech in Manchester in 1963 when he talked about the timing of imports.
Thirdly, the Government should carry out the pledge to encourage other countries to take a greater share of the exports of developing countries. Fourthly, and most important of all, there should be an attempt to tackle the problem of Portugal, and it is on this last point that I would like to say a few words.
The problem of Portugal is that we are covered in our trade with her by the Stockholm Convention as being an E.F.T.A. country, but I remind the House that the second object of this Convention is said to be to ensure that trade between member States takes place in conditions of fair competition. I ask the Government seriously to consider whether that is happening with Portugal


today. Are we trading with her in conditions of fair competition when the wage rates paid in that country are about one-sixth of what they are in this country?
Are the Government right in saying that there is nothing that they can do to tackle the problem of Imports from Portugal? We understand that Norway has done it. I understand, and I ask the Government whether it is true, that Norway has done it on the recommendation of an international jurist. Is it a fact that four months ago the opinion of an international jurist was sent to the Foreign Office, setting out ways in which the powers of the Stockholm Convention could be enforced in respect of our trade with Portugal?
I suggest that there are two matters—I do not claim that they are necessarily right—which could be looked at. I am referring to Articles 20 and 31 of the Convention. As I understand, Article 20 allows a country which is a member of E.F.T.A. to impose quantitative restrictions for a period of up to 18 months where increased imports from another member State have led to an appreciable rise in unemployment. Surely it is worth at least looking at the powers under Article 20 to see whether they can be enforced.
Article 31 says:
If any Member State considers that any benefit conferred upon it by this Convention … is being or may be frustrated and if no satisfactory settlement is reached between the Member States concerned,
then it may refer the matter to the Council.
One of the Convention's objects is fair competition in trade. It is at least arguable that Portugal is frustrating that object by reliance on child labour and some lack of safety regulations over machinery. Norway has somehow come to an agreement with Portugal over the import of cloth; the Board of Trade must know whether this is so. Surely the Board of Trade can discover whether some similar arrangement is possible for us.
The causes are easy to highlight, but the answers difficult to find. Although there is no cotton mill in my constituency, many of the workers in the industry live there. Most of the industrial life of the

North-West depends upon the bouyancy of the industry. If Lancashire is to survive, and the necessary re-equipment of the industry is to go on, the Government must find more adequate means than hitherto of assisting Lancashire.

12.7 a.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: There is no need for me to review all the causes and possible remedies of the present state of the Lancashire textile industry, because there is no controversy about them. I offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) not only for raising the subject, but for the way in which he did so. He outlined them all, and all have been repeated with variations by every speaker.
My hon. Friend was speaking for both sides of the industry and both sides of the House. I do not speak, as did the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), on the basis that there are no cotton workers in my constituency, but from another point of view—in my constituency there are virtually no other workers, and there have not been during the 31 years that I have represented them. In our last debate on this subject, I pointed out that the rate of unemployment in Nelson and Colne was 50 per cent. above the national percentage. I was then reassured when I was reminded that, although it was rising much faster than unemployment throughout the country, it had still not yet reached the national average.
That is no longer true. Obviously, it could not have remained true for very long; that is, if it had continued to rise so much faster than the national rate. It has long ceased to be true. The rate of unemployment in Nelson and Colne today is 3·5 per cent. or 3·7 per cent. It is not yet double the national average, but it is rapidly getting there. I am told that when the Easter holidays come along 10 mills in Nelson will close their doors for a whole week and that, when the holidays are over, a number of other mills will close, if not for a whole week then for part of the time.
There is a difference between the speeches made on either side of the House on this subject, although hon. Gentlemen opposite have been saying very much the same as my hon. Friends.


The difference has been that hon. Gentlemen opposite were saying it in a different spirit. We are, naturally, grateful in Lancashire for all the support we can get and we are grateful to hon. Gentlemen opposite for taking part in this debate and for supporting Lancashire's case. However, naturally enough, they have done it—and I am not complaining about this—with a certain amount of pleasure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame".] I am not saying that hon. Gentlemen opposite are taking pleasure in the state of the industry. I would not accuse any of them of that. It is, however, natural for an hon. Member of the Opposition not to be displeased if he can find a sound and justifiable cause for attacking the Government he is opposing. It is natural, proper, quite legitimate and I am not in the least complaining about it.
But it is not in that spirit that my hon. Friends and I criticise the Government. The people for whom I am speaking are not opponents of the Government. They say, "This is our Labour Government. This is the party to which we have given a lifetime of service, so that it might win the battle. We do not like to feel that we are being let down by the Government who, we thought, would be the salvation of not merely Lancashire, but of the country and, in a sense, of the world." These people do not rejoice and they are not merely activated by selfish interests of their own labour, wages and future, although these are, naturally, very much present in their minds.
There is another consideration. These people are beginning to feel that they have wasted their lives—that perhaps they were not on the right side, after all. They are beginning to feel that the labour, devotion and sincerity which they have put into building up the Labour movement and securing a Labour Government in this country has been, for them, wasted labour, wasted effort and wasted devotion. They do not like to feel this way, but they feel that they cannot begin again. They will not vote for the Tories. They see no hope in the Opposition.
What is rapidly developing is that they see no hope any way, and no hope in anybody and it is that of which we complain. I see my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in his place. I am told, and I hope

that it is not true, and that my right hon. Friend will take the earliest possible opportunity to deny it, that Manchester City Council is adjusting its Standing Orders to allow for the purchase of all-British-made goods to help Lancashire's cotton industry and that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has asked them to rescind this, to allow other sources of supply to tender.
I do not believe it. I would almost say that if my right hon. Friend stood up and told me it was true that I would not believe it, but it is being said. Is it true or not? What is the attitude of the Government to purchases of cotton goods by themselves and local authorities? Do they really not care whether these goods are Lancashire goods or Hong Kong goods, or Indonesian goods? If there are these modest rules by local authorities to try to help home industries by buying their products at moments of suffering, is it the Government's attitude that they should be urged not to do that?
I quote from a notice claimed to have been put up in a warehouse in Manchester. I understand that the name is Bell Brothers. I am told that a notice recently appeared there headed "Overseas Aid to Indonesia" and that it said:
The British Government wishes to purchase 2¾ million yards cotton grey cloth"—
and it gives the measurements. It goes on:
Hong Kong or any other imported grey cloth will be considered along with Lancashire production.
Then, as an inducement to prefer the other products to Lancashire products, there is a note:
Imported Cloth quote 13d. per yard. Cheapest Lancashire quote, 18d. per yard".
I am not saying that the Government are responsible for any such notice, but I would like to know their policy. Are they, in the near future, proposing to buy 2¾ million yards of grey cloth, and if so, do they really not care where it comes from at a moment when the Lancashire textile trade is in the situation it is, when mills have been closing for months in every part of the Lancashire textile industry, and are still closing, and when the rate of unemployment is higher than for the nation as a whole? Is it now Government policy to discourage the purchase of Lancashire goods when they are going to buy goods anyway?
I should like some assurance about this. This has nothing to do with the long-term reconstruction of the industry. This is a question of whether the Government care about the people in Lancashire at all. Have they written off the people as well as the industry? If they have, what is our remedy? Are we to try to engineer some kind of technological cataclysm whereby the whole of Lancashire can be transported lock, stock and barrel to somewhere east of Suez, so that the Government will aid its people?
I do not want to be unnecessarily bitter. I have represented my constituency for a long time. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government was brought up in it. His father, Arthur Greenwood, represented it long before I had ever heard of it, and was one of the major architects of the success of the Labour movement in this country. How does my right hon. Friend think that people in Nelson and Colne react to a situation of this kind, where there is no one on either side of the House who can hold out to them any comfort or reassurance, or any proof that the Government care anything about their fortunes or are prepared to do anything to help them?
I agree with those who say that the textile industry in Lancashire is not finished, that it could have a great future, but many of those in it cannot wait for the great future. They are hungry now. I beg the Government, if they retain anything of the spirit by which they became a Government in the first place, if they still owe any obligation to the promises and pledges they gave, knowing what the difficulties were, to make a drastic and fundamental review of their whole policy for the textile industry in Lancashire.

12.23 a.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I am very grateful for this opportunity to congratulate my constituent, the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), on the manner in which he introduced this subject. I am sure that he and the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) made the kind of speeches that can be made only by people whose knowledge of the subject is derived from a very close personal contact with the industry,

and who have the ability actually to feel its problems themselves. The House, is, I am sure, grateful to them both for the way in which they spoke.
I am not personally involved in the textile industry, but I have lived the whole of my life in Greater Manchester, and have, therefore spent it with people who have been involved in or who are dependent on this industry at one level or another. I have practised in cotton towns and I have worked in hospitals in cotton districts and, and this is not irrelevant, I have spent more years than I care to remember playing cricket in the Lancashire League.
I mention that because hon. Members who represent cotton towns will know how close is the connection between these towns, the textile industry and their own cricket teams. I mention it because in recent years I have noticed without any doubt a return of the type of mood and atmosphere in those towns which I noticed when, as a boy, I watched their teams play cricket. This seems a very sad thing. I have also had the opportunity of noticing in my friends, my patients and my constituents the very clear signs of ebbing confidence and rising disillusionment, which is the mood that has been referred to by so many hon. Friends.
I will take only a few moments, because I realise that time is short tonight, but I would emphasise my view—and I am sure it is also the view of most hon. Members involved in this discussion—that this is a subject in which time is not on our side.
This matter is urgent. It is extremely urgent that confidence should be restored. I would accept that the industry itself must accept some of the blame for the situation in which it now is, because going back into the past we had an industry which was under the control of people who I believe were motivated more by greed than by feelings of social or public interest. But in saying that, I readily accept that this has changed and that both sides of this industry are anxious to move forward, anxious to work in new ways and to become forward looking in every way.
But the industry needs help. It needs help, encouragement and time, and I believe that with that help, that encouragement and that time, we could have


the best textile industry in the world, although I emphasise that it would have to be the best. Unless we have the time, and unless the necessary steps are taken, it may well be that we will finish up without a textile industry at all.
As has been said already, the Portuguese are already capturing the sheetings market, and there seems to be no reason why, bit by bit, they should not gradually capture the whole industry unless the right steps are taken now.
What should be done? In my view, one thing would be to speed up our entry into the European Economic Community, because I believe that this is likely to provide the kind of support which the industry needs. It is true that there may be some wait before that happy event. Therefore, although I would not wish to labour the point of tariff and quota restrictions which has been developed by many hon. Members, we must take certain steps now and, in particular, with regard to restrictions on Portuguese textiles.
I would like to make another point so far as the Portuguese situation is concerned. I would have thought there was a case for us to ask—it might have no immediate result, but it would do no harm—the International Labour Organisation to inquire into the conditions in Portugal about which we hear so much. Whether that would bear fruit, I do not know, but I believe it is worth doing.
More than one Ministry is involved in this, and I am very glad to see that the Government Front Bench has been occupied by Ministers who are concerned and who can do much to help the situation. The Minister of Transport can do much, and many of us regret that more has not been done earlier more perhaps to counteract the effect of an unbalanced road system—with the M6 running up the centre of Lancashire—bleeding the areas of the cotton trade. Had steps been taken rapidly to supply the necessary communications and transport, assistance could have been given at an earlier stage to some of these areas.
I would like to see the Ministry of Technology combining in partnership with the industry in building research factories, or, at any rate, a research factory, in which one could use fully automated machinery under practical production conditions. If

we are looking forward to a new type of textile industry we ought to be planning for it. This is just one of the steps which the Government could now be taking in order to provide the kind of encouragement which the industry so badly needs.
Clearly, this future industry, if it is to have a future at all, will require not operatives, but technicians. That would mean an extension in training facilities, and indeed, in retraining facilities. I am aware that there are retraining centres, but I would have thought that more could be done and that it is a matter of urgency to provide the necessary encouragement to establish further retraining centres now.
I believe that there is a case for making East Lancashire a development area and thereby enabling it to benefit from the various help which would accrue. We have heard from hon. Members that some of the mills which have closed have been very modern, but I have seen some, and I am sure other hon. Members have seen some, which are very antiquated. Efforts have been made to install new plant and to work in new ways under extremely difficult circumstances. If the East Lancashire area were made a development area it might be possible to supply purpose-built factories on extremely modern lines which could inject a little enthusiasm, faith and hope into an industry which desperately needs all three.
Somewhere, I think, during the first half hour or so of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), there was a reference to the need for confidence. I agree entirely. It is absolutely essential that confidence should be restored. If capital and talent are to be attracted back to the industry, or kept within it, confidence must be restored at once, but confidence will not be restored by talk; what we need is action. I very much hope that we shall hear from the Government Front Bench a catalogue of the various actions which the Government will take here and now.

12.31 a.m.

Mr. H. Boardman: It must be a very long time since the House has seen such a demonstration of all-party bitterness as has been seen tonight. That is the great significance of this debate. I am only sorry that the Prime Minister is not here himself to witness it. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade


will see to it that the feeling in the House at present is conveyed to the Prime Minister without delay.
The Lancashire textile industry has a very long history of boom and slump. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) cam about not knowing where to attribute blame. He thought that some of it was due to those in the industry because of their greed.

Dr. Winstanley: In the past.

Mr. Boardman: We should not live in the past, but it is worthy of comment that, because they had so many slumps, when they had a boom they felt that they should recoup their losses. The main point is not so much the history of boom and slump as that, when manufacturing sources have been multiplying throughout the world, it has been obvious to the most casual observer that this industry had to become a great deal smaller.
We all remember that a few years ago the Government of the day were pressed to say how small the industry should ultimately be so that it could organise itself on an efficient basis to create an industry which would offer some security which, up to then, its employees had not known. I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) said about the demands which the Government made on the industry during the immediate post-war years. By heavens, do not we from Lancashire know that! Do we not remember the Ministry of Labour of those days acting as recruiting agents for the industry and plastering every cotton town with notices saying "England's bread hangs on Lancashire's thread"?
During the years from 1947 to 1949 I went with my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) round most of the displaced persons camps in Europe to try to recruit displaced persons for work in our textile industry. We were trying to cajole into coming back people who had left the cotton industry. They were probably those who had gone into the Services and into other work after the war because they found it more profitable. We were trying to get them back into the industry and we were fairly successful. What a tragedy and irony it is that the men we

got back at about 30 or 35 years of age are now, 20 years later, being thrown out of the industry at a time when they will find it increasingly difficult to get other suitable work.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) when he says that the industry is not yet to be written off. I do not think it is, either, and nor did the Tory Administration, when they allocated £30 million to encourage reinvestment and to encourage the industry to put itself in such a state of efficiency as to meet all-covers in competition. Since then many millions of pounds have been poured into the industry. There has been a great deal of investment and revolution in the industry, not only of capitalisation, but among the workers. The humblest worker has accepted changed conditions to two and three shifts. I would like to know in what other industry such revolutionary changes have taken place without the loss of a single day in disputes.
What an irony it is now that, in spite of this confidence, the industry has taken a severe battering in the last 12 months or so. People were beginning to despair until that bright day in July, 1963, when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke in Manchester. I know that there is a rule against tedious repetition. This might be repetition, but it is not tedious. I have promised to be brief and I will tend to speak in headlines if I can in view of the number of hon. Members who want to speak after me. Most of what I have to say is based on what the Foreign Secretary said.
My right hon. Friend said:
… a Cotton Commission must be established to advise, supervise,"—
and this is where the bite comes—
and, where necessary, regulate imports of cotton goods into the U.K.
I have never known a single speech made by a politician bring about such enthusiasm in industrial Lancashire and to rebuild so instantaneously the confidence the industry once knew. Now we are told that the Government can give no powers to an outside body.
I want somebody to tell me why that promise was made. This was not a brick-dropping exercise by the Foreign Secretary. If it was, it should have been corrected. Nobody has claimed that he


was misquoted. He was not misquoted, because not only did Transport House like that speech of the Foreign Secretary, but it showed how much it liked it when it had it printed, published and circulated in every cotton constituency during the 1964 General Election. It was regarded as a winner in cotton towns. I may sound rather 1945-ish and rather naive, but I happen to be one of those people, and I am sure that there are many of us, who believe that if a pledge is made during an election campaign it should be carried out.
Last Thursday, I had a Question down to the Prime Minister on this subject. I was astonished when he said that the Government implemented their pledges on 1st January of last year. If we have changed from a timorous Tory policy on textiles to a dynamic Labour policy, the transition has been so smooth that we in Lancashire have never noticed it. This will have a very big effect politically in Lancashire. We are not speaking purely from the political point of view tonight. We are talking about bread and butter. Despite the fact that the Prime Minister gave the assurance that a new policy has been in operation since January of last year, what is troubling those in Lancashire is that mills are continuing to close and that people, particularly the middle-aged, find it very difficult to obtain other suitable work in the vicinity.
Statistics in Whitehall can mean a very great deal of misery and unhappiness in Wigan. It is all right talking in terms of percentages, but when we are talking in terms of somebody losing the job in which he is trained and skilled, and to which he has given his life, and losing it at an age when he will find difficulty in getting other work, it is a very serious problem.
The Government say that they cannot give power to an outside body. If that is so, I accept the fact and write off the Foreign Secretary's speech, its publication and its circulation as merely regrettable. I accept that the Government cannot give powers to an outside body. Everybody knows that the President of the Board of Trade does not sit at his desk pouring over figures, looking at statistics, working out global quotas. He has advisers. I see no reason why he

should not co-opt on to his advisory panel, say, three people from the Imports Commission, so called, so that they can be there when the decision is made, so that they can personally advise, so that they know what inhibitions there are in the Minister's mind if their own suggestions cannot be followed. I believe that such an arrangement would satisfy the industry and would enable the Government, even at this late hour, to redeem their promise and thereby redeem themselves in the eyes of Lancashire cotton people.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the House that this is the fourth out of 18 subjects which hon. Members are seeking to raise on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Many hon. Members from Lancashire wish to speak in this debate. I would hope that they will speak briefly.

12.43 a.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: Mr. Speaker, I shall do my best to follow your advice. It is a privilege for me to speak in this debate, because I have heard so many speeches which I would have given much to have made. I hope that it does not sound presumptuous of me to say that, should the time come when I have to attack my own side, and if I can make speeches of the calibre and courage to which we have listened from hon. Members opposite tonight, I shall be very proud.
I intervene, first, because my constituency is a Lancashire one. Although it may not be affected so directly as those of other hon. Members, it will be affected, because when the cotton industry is pricked the Fylde bleeds. My constituency has 8·3 per cent. unemployed. Any increase in that figure would be almost intolerable.
My second reason for speaking is that I was born and brought up in East Lancashire; my grandfather was a cotton weaver and in the 'thirties I had personal experience of what closures meant. It is something I have never forgotten and something I shall never forget for the rest of my life. I consequently feel very strongly about the measures being taken to deal with the present situation. It would be presumptuous of me to castigate the Government, especially when that has been done already, and not only


by hon. Members on this side. Therefore, I will try to make a practical contribution.
It is to ask the Minister of State to look at the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). Action must be taken quickly, and as a lawyer, I would say that it must be legal action. When I saw the delegation last week I was impressed by the fact that those people thought something could be done along the lines we have heard tonight. They said that Norway had done something, and had taken legal advice and, if Norway has not, and there is some reason for that, then this House should be told. The Government should tell us why it is believed that this cannot be done. The Government has a duty to let us know what is the position. If this mission has to be advisory then, as a lawyer, I would say that I think the difficulty is a lack of real evidence.
I was most impressed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), when he spoke about Portuguese exports to Sweden which are going out at a different price from those of this country. If such a fact can be established—and it should be established or otherwise by the Government, rather than by the industry—then there could be some way of getting legal action to protect Lancashire.

Mr. Mapp: I do not want to detain the the House, but I should like to explain that the "managed" Portuguese economy—and I say "managed" advisedly—has a two-price system. There is one, which might be the normal one and which is based on costing, and this applies to Western Europe, excluding Britain; but because of our Commonwealth preference system and Commonwealth arrangements they put a cost-minus price on imports to Britain so that they can be competitive with the Commonwealth imports which come here without any duty.

Mr. Clegg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
If I may return to what I was saying, I think that it is information which has to be fed to the Government. The industry can provide some information on which the President of the Board of Trade can act, but what about our consular offices abroad? I should have

thought that this sort of service is what we pay for. I plead with the Minister of State to bear these things in mind. That is one of the few positive contributions I can make in adding my voice to those who are asking the Government for something to be done for Lancashire.

12.50 a.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: I will honour to the letter the injunction which you, Mr. Speaker, gave us some hours ago by being brief and keeping strictly in order.
I most strongly support what was said so eloquently a few minutes ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman), because if anything "sticks in the crop" of Lancashire people more than anything else it is when pledges which have been given are broken. For those of us who have worked in Lancashire for a long time, we feel—and hon. Members on the other side of the House have made their contributions along these lines—that a point of honour, given so far as Lancashire industry is concerned, is at stake. Since all the facts have been laid bare, all that I wish to do is to convey to the House as truthfully as I can the feelings of my constituents and those of people in neighbouring towns where anxieties which are rampant must be allayed.
Like other hon. Members who have sat here for several hours, I attended the conference in Manchester about three weeks ago which was organised by the cotton trade unions. A very large number of delegates filed into Manchester from all parts of the county. Rarely in my career as an active politician and trade unionist have I seen such righteous anger and indignation as was displayed in the speeches made at that conference. I had the extreme embarrassment, the mortification, of sitting for some hours on the platform with my hon. Friends and listening to the delegates who came to the rostrum one after another seething with anger, indignation and bewilderment. They read the horoscope of my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Prime Minister in very dramatic words. I thought that the Press was very kind to us in that it did not report more of the speeches.
These things concern us deeply. We know that the country is going through


a revolutionary phase of reorganisation of industry, and that times change and we must change with them. Nobody has shown greater willingness or greater toleration than the Lancashire textile workers in adapting themselves to the changing world in which their bread and butter is involved. They have accepted the three-shift system, and all kinds of redeployment. Practices which were regarded as restrictive have been swept away by agreement. There has never been a strike in the industry. They have accepted the very unpalatable measures to promote the greater level of efficiency which all the statistics prove they have achieved.
We say to my right hon. Friend—and we cannot say it too often—that we do not accept the puny measures which he announced last Tuesday as any solution to the flood of unfair competition coming to these shores through the ports without any effective control. It is solemnly stated in debate that it is technically difficult to set up the machinery required for policing an operation of this kind so that we may have a proper record of what is coming into this country.
I am astonished that people who have been to our great historic universities can have the impudence to tell people like me, who have not been to university, that this cannot be done. I suggest to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that it is not the business of the industry to make policing arrangements to discover what is happening concerning the international flow of goods into this country. It is the duty of the Government to provide the policing apparatus for seeing what is going on in international trade.
It is not the Cotton Board's duty to have a new name attached to one of its committees and be called a commission instead of a sub-committee of the Textile Council. It is the duty of the President of the Board of Trade to create the machinery which will, day by day, week by week, check on the amount of international trade entering our ports.
I do not want to be unfair to my right hon. Friend. But I am angry, and he knows that many of us are angry and are trying to restrain our anger. But it is no use telling me that this is difficult, that commercial intelligence cannot be

funnelled through to the point of control in the Board of Trade daily, and hourly if necessary. There are about 30,000 betting shops—which I have always opposed—linked by the telephones owned by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General. By the "blower" system, every bookmaker in every little tin-pot back-street betting office receives intelligence of what is going on on the courses. Without it he could not work his business.
Why can we not have sense brought into this matter? If the facilities of the modern world do that for bookmakers, how much more important it is to do it for the honest, decent, working-class people of Lancashire, who only ask to earn a living. I do not want to develop the point too far, because the points that can be raised in the debate have already been very fairly raised.
I assure my right hon. Friend whose painful duty it will be to reply, that unless he does so with a far more convincing story than any he has told me in the past few weeks I cannot return to my constituency and defend what he is doing. I should have to be as forthright and honest with my constituents as I always try to be in the House, even with my right hon. and hon. Friends when I think that they are in the wrong.
I make no apology for perhaps imparting passion into my speech, because I sat 13 years on the other side of the House and often had the similar duty of chastising Tory Ministers about their neglect of the industry. They have nothing to boast about in the industry's history.
We have had a very good debate and I know that one or two of my hon. Friends want to say something. [An HON. MEMBER: "If we get a chance."] It is all right; I have been very brief. I have not been eight minutes yet, which is very good.
This is a serious issue which affects the livelihood of people in Lancashire, who are bewildered by the Government's failure to take the action that they thought that they would take when they elected a Labour Government two years ago. I plead with my right hon. Friend to think again about what should and can be done to arrest the constant decline that goes on ever more rapidly in the textile industry.

12.53 a.m.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: I, too, shall try to be brief, because I know how much other hon. Members wish to speak.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) referred to a difference of tone in the speeches from the two sides of the House. I think that that difference arises from the fact that on this side we feel only anger that pledges have been given which have not been fulfilled. It is easy to understand that for hon. Members opposite that must be mixed with dismay at feeling that they supported policies to which they can no longer feel they were justified in giving their support. There is no doubt that pledges were given before 1964 that an imports control commission would be set up.
The President of the Board of Trade is in grave danger of breaking the pledge he gave to the Cotton Board in October, 1965, if he does not act immediately. I believe that it is shuffling off responsibility which lies with him and the Government to set up an advisory committee at this stage.
In the debate on the establishment of the new Textile Council, on 13th December, I mentioned that, in my view, the Government now had all the advice from that new body which it needed to control the industry's affairs. I direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the comment of his right hon. Friend the Minister of State in winding up that discussion, when he said:
The idea of an Imports Commission has been overtaken by events, because the Board of Trade has power to carry out all the duties which would have been given to an Imports Commission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1966; Vol. 738, c. 391.]
What is wanted is not further advice, but an acceptance of responsibility and action on the part of the Board of Trade. In that debate, I asked the Government whether they could give information on the mill closures that had taken place in 1966. Again, the Minister of State said that he had not the information available, but that the Board of Trade was in touch with the Cotton Board. Since then, a great deal more information has become available.
In 1966, there were just under 60 mill closures. I believe that we are justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman, in his, I am sure, genuine wish to reassure the industry, whether he would give us a forecast of what is to be the developing trend of the industry in 1967. How many more closures does his Department expect to take place? In Lancashire for, I think, the first time, the question now being asked is not how many more closures there will be in 1967, but how many mills will be open and operating by the end of the year. Districts which previously counted the textile industry as one of their main providers of employment are finding it difficult to locate a textile mill that is working.
One point which has not perhaps received great attention in the debate is that it is the task of the Government to ease the path of change for the nation generally and particularly for an industry when it is in a phase of rapid contraction. One of the causes of resentment in Lancashire today is that the textile industry had acepted, albeit perhaps belatedly and reluctantly, the need for change and contraction and that change and contraction were taking place at a rapid rate prior to the measures of 20th July. There had been a substantial inflow of capital into the industry—something which was much needed and which had taken a considerable time to bring about. On of the most damaging effects of the present situation is that it could, I believe, well check and perhaps halt permanently the inflow of new capital into the industry. That would be a disaster for Lancashire and for Government generally, because it would damage the effectiveness of assistance given by Government for the needed changes in the economy.
Of course, we accept that, where more productive machinery is being installed and greater shift working is being brought into operation, there will be closures when the total market is static, but the point that those of us who have spent our lives in Lancashire wish to drive home—because it is a point which the Government find it difficult to realise—is that whether change is tolerable for the textile industry depends almost entirely on the marginal level of imports.
It is the marginal variations in imports which are decisive for this industry


because of its trading structure. If the right hon. Gentleman, in an attempt—recognised at the time—to give the industry stability until 1970 has miscalculated, no one, least of all we in this House, will think any less of him if he will recognise it and endeavour to secure some further easement of the import position for Lancashire. If he is to succeed in restoring confidence in the industry, he must make a forecast of what the level of imports for 1967 will be as a proportion of the total home demand.
The right hon. Gentleman should say how many closures there will be in the weaving industry and in the spinning industry. Perhaps most important of all, in view of the trend of the past 12 months when it has been estimated that about 14,000 people have left the industry, it is vital that he should give a forecast of the number of people who will be in employment at the end of this year so that we can be sure that the flow of people out of the industry will be arrested.
If the right hon. Gentleman can give that assurance and commit himself with conviction to the fact that it will not continue at the same rate for a further 10 months, he will have succeeded in restoring a reasonable measure of confidence to the industry.

1.5 a.m.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I wish that I could convey to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade the feelings of sorrow and anger which were expressed at a Manchester meeting of cotton workers which I attended about three weeks ago. It was a closely packed meeting, with a large proportion of men and women aged between 50 and 60 present. Many of them thought, perhaps rightly, that they might never be employed again in the cotton industry. Some of the single ladies of that age were crying, because they believed that the end of employment in the industry was the same as cuting off 10 years of their lives.
I cannot say that I have much experience of the cotton industry, or of its workers, but I was surprised at that meeting to find out how good those workers were. It occurred to me that they were suffering from their own virtue, from their strike-free record, the way

that they have faced with resignation depression and recession, and have endured rationalisation. Different workers in similar circumstances would have raised the roof. Instead of being able to shake hands with them at the end of the meeting, we should have required a police escort from the building.
Their demands were typically modest. One rather ageing worker said, "We do not say that the world owes the Lancashire cotton industry a living." He was wrong. If there is any industry to which the world owes a living, it is the Lancashire cotton industry. One does not have to know the industry first-hand to know that it was Lancashire which first led the world to a decent living. A pioneer in the Industrial Revolution, it showed the world how to control the forces of nature in such a way that, for the first time, a break-through was achieved, to the benefit of all mankind.
Lancashire adopted a typically liberal attitude when one under-developed country after another tried to become industrialised. It was always cotton which was started on first, and it was always Lancashire which helped with experience. It was this country which helped by allowing in imports to an extent which no other country allowed. Even today, we allow in ten times the volume and value of cotton imports that other countries in similar positions permit. One has only to think of Germany, and indeed many other continental countries.
Unfortunately, although these other countries were quick to learn from Lancashire's skill and experience, they did not learn the other lesson which she taught the world, to combine to give the workers in the industry good conditions, and so many under-developed countries failed to learn this side of the lesson that Lancashire today is suffering greatly, in the most unfair way possible, because of the low wages which these newer, under-developed countries are paying. The unfairness of this competitive position was established in about 1920, when the International Labour Organisation was founded, and it seems strange to me that we should still be in this position so many years later.
Lancashire has suffered from cheap labour in Japan and many other countries, including Formosa and Korea,


and more recently Portugal. This is most galling to Lancashire, because whereas Portugal gets the benefits of E.F.T.A. membership she has few of the disadvantages, for we know that while she is trading as an E.F.T.A. country we are treating her is an underdeveloped country. While she has the advantage of no duty on textile exports to the United Kingdom, our goods are not exempt from duty in Portugal.
There are many other disadvantages which we suffer in competition with Portugal. Some of these have been mentioned. Portugese wages are the lowest in Europe, and the wages of textile workers in Portugal are the lowest in that country, apart from the wages of agricultural workers. We know too, despite what has been said, that a kind of dumping is being undertaken by the Portuguese Government, and that the new textile factories built there get certain tax concessions, and that the workers receive tax allowances. We also know that cheap cotton is coming from Mozambique, where it is produced under near slave labour conditions.
I think, as has been suggested by some hon. Members this evening, that we could follow the example of Norway and Sweden and do much to prevent this ever-increasing flood of imports from Portugal and ensure that the competitive conditions are fair, but if necessary we should go further. If we cannot get this, we should recommend that Portugal is not a fit and proper member of E.F.T.A. She will contaminate us industrially, as much as she has contaminated us politically. She is a member of E.F.T.A., not because she resembles any country in E.F.T.A.; she is there merely by an historic accident.

Mr. Hall-Davis: in the interests of Lancashire, may I suggest that it is that kind of statement which may well make it more difficult for the President of the Board of Trade to secure the reduction in imports which we are seeking? If one has an ally, it is better to regard him as such rather than to indulge in abuse. I believe that the hon. Gentleman should consider the political implications of what he is saying.

Mr. Atkins: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's statement. I am saying it

in this debate because I have never heard it said before in this Chamber, and it is time that it was said.
Portugal is in E.F.T.A. on the strength—

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. The hon. Member is out of order. He must not make a speech when he is not in his place.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must stand in his place to make a speech.

Mr. Atkins: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I am learning every day.
Portugal is in E.F.T.A. because we were partners in the slave trade about 150 years ago. This is a weak foundation, particularly if our conditions are to be dragged down to the Portuguese level because of unfair competition. This could, if unchecked, mean the end of the Lancashire industry. If my right hon. Friend cannot secure other concessions, I would urge him even to go this far.
Many remedies have been suggested, but for lack of time I will mention only two. What is required is a willingness to see that Lancashire gets the right treatment. The Government should ensure that Government contracts go to the industry and it should be made easier for manufacturers to get credit to restock. The Government have helped many industries by means of low-interest loans, including the shipbuilding industry, and this has sometimes been shown by the keeping of stocks at pitheads.
Cannot cotton manufacturers be helped in the same way? I appeal to him to remember Lancashire's importance, not only to the country but to the Labour movement. Although there are only 120,000 people in the industry—which is shameful—cotton is more important than it seems to Lancashire, which was born and bred on cotton; all Lancashire has a great affection for the commodity. If we ignore Lancashire, we commit political suicide. However, my appeal is not prompted by fear, but because Lancashire requires justice as much as our intellectual help.

1.18 a.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: Despite what you said a little time ago,


Mr. Speaker, I make no apology for intervening. I come from an old Lancashire family of working people in Rochdale and the proudest moment of my life came when I was made President of the Lancastrian Association. I therefore feel a duty to intervene in this debate.
I understand the anger which has been expressed constructively and responsibly by hon. Members opposite about the blatant breach of Government pledges to the textile industry in a speech by the present Foreign Secretary in 1963, and in speeches in the House and elsewhere by the Ministers of Housing and Local Government and Transport. There is anger on both sides of the House at this blatant betrayal of the industry, which was given a definite pledge which has not been honoured.
The issue is even more important than the breaking of a pledge. The textile industry was over-built after the war by the then Labour Government, although I do not criticise that Administration for taking that action. It is tragic to think now that at that time this industry was able to export when our engineering and other industries had not recreated themselves after the war. The textile industry was, therefore, organised on a labour basis rather than on a production basis, with three times the labour it has today. There is no doubt that it was over-expanded.
After then, under Conservative Governments, the international pattern changed and, from being an exporting nation after the war, we became an importing nation. The problems of the textile industry were spreading like measles through a family. The Govern-meld of the day were slow, perhaps rightly, to respond, since they said, "This industry must battle its way through these problems in this new and changing modern era."
In the late 'fifties we had a new cotton reorganisation scheme and the then Government put £30 million in the "kitty". I recall that when the negotiations about that £30 million were at a very tricky stage—tricky because the then Conservative Government faced a considerable division of opinion over the issue—I, as the Chairman of the Conservative Party in the North-West of England, informed

the Prime Minister that unless a scheme of that sort was introduced, he could no longer rely on my support in the House of Commons.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite who have tonight spoken sincerely and passionately about this matter should, I suggest, take the sort of action which I felt it my duty to take, because something must be done to make certain that the new Commission is given teeth so that it can bring succour to the industry. In the short-term, that is the only way in which hon. Gentlemen opposite can bring pressure to bear on the Government.
Being a believer in efficiency in industry, I suggest that both Front Benches must answer this question: do we in Britain want a textile industry? We have tried global quotas and other measures, but on every occasion when these schemes have been tried another country, outside the agreement, develops its industry, produces textiles more cheaply and floods our market. If we begin to hold Portugal, in two years' time another country—Uganda, Malawi, or someone else—will appear on the scene. We must accept that in a world of growing technology the textile industry, in a modern society, given the freedom we have given to importers, will be constantly under threat.
I rejoice in the fact that during the 'fifties the contraction of the textile industry in Lancashire was balanced all the time by the growth of the engineering and other more science-based industries. However, the textile industry has had to absorb a great deal of hardship as a result of its contraction. The Government must, therefore, face up to the fact that the textile industry as it exists today, employing only 120,000 people, is already producing goods in a far more efficient way than it did before the reorganisation of the 'fifties. Although it has efficient mills, efficient grouping, verticalisation, and so on, it is facing a contracting market in this country.
We have had this argument on the Floor of the House before, but I think that a nation of our size, which deliberately allows the textile industry to contract very much more, would be a very foolish nation. Do we know what sort of situation we will find in the years to come?
If we have an industry that is still capable, not of exporting, but of providing a balance of between two-thirds and three-quarters of the home market, it is not a very large industry. It may, therefore, be necessary that we keep a textile industry for the safety and wellbeing of the nation in future.
The Government could take a deliberate decision to allow the industry to run down until it disappears altogether. One could make a powerful argument for this action, but it would not be an argument which the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) or myself, with our knowledge of the textile industry, would be likely to put forward.
The Government are, therefore, in this dilemma. Let them say quite categorically that during their period of office they will maintain a textile industry able to produce two-thirds of the offtake for the home market. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider these points which have not been made tonight, despite the length of the debate. There is not only a shocking lack of confidence in the industry at the moment, which is bound to lead to the fact that there will be no capital to continue modernisation, but unless one gets very rapidly a far greater certainty of prosperity for the industry, there is not a careers master in a school or a university tutor, or anybody else, who will recommend to school leavers that they should go into the textile industry.
The right hon. Gentleman could well find himself, in four or five years' time, with Courtaulds, Viyella, Carrington and Dewhurst, modern groups which he wants, organised efficiently, but because nobody is coming into the industry, faced with getting no qualified men although they are much more scientifically based—and the word is much—than they were 10 or 15 years ago. This crisis of confidence will have to be solved very quickly if we are to get replacement of those now drifting out of the industry.
It is not a great encouragement to a girl, even though she knows the industry is more scientifically based, and although she has got two O-levels at school, if she knows that her mother, who tries to induce her to go into the textile industry, was made redundant at the age of 45 in 1967. This is not an encouragement

to someone to go into the industry with the feeling that there is a prosperous future.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that if he is not to be faced with a rebellion throughout Lancashire—and I believe that this broken pledge goes further than a party broken pledge and involves the whole of Parliament—if he is not able to give a much clearer view of what the Imports Commission will do, and give a categorical assurance that he, as the responsible Minister, will accept its recommendation for action for immediate implementation; if he cannot give an assurance about how Norway has acted over Portuguese imports; and about home purchases by Government Departments during the recession, I am sure that a great many of his colleagues who have spoken so eloquently for the industry will only be in the House until the Dissolution, when the electorate have an opportunity of telling the Government what they think.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am hoping to call every hon. Member who seeks to take part in this, the fourth of 18 proposed debates. I can do so only if they are brief.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: I give an assurance, Mr. Speaker, that I shall be brief, first, in deference to your wish and, secondly, because many of my quotations have already been used—though perhaps not with the clarity with which I would have used them—and figures I would dearly have liked to have quoted have also been given.
I was very glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) speak in somewhat disparaging terms abut statistics, because it seems to me that during recent weeks, and tonight as well, we have been talking a great deal in the cold language of statistics—about global quotas, the niceties of import figures and the arithmetical detailing of prices in so many escudos per kilo. No doubt these are very important figures and do a great deal to explain Government policy, but in my submission we are dealing with more important facts than that.
In this debate we are dealing with the people of Lancashire, and, in particular, with the people of North-East Lancashire,


and even more particularly for me, with the people in my constituency. We are dealing with what has happened to them during the last few months.
Much reference has been made on both sides to the present atmosphere in Lancashire, and I do not think it has been exaggerated. It is fair to say that at the moment there is an atmosphere of disenchantment, and utter disbelief that this sort of thing could happen to them under a Labour Government. For the effects on Lancashire—and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will agree with me—cannot be measured purely by the closure of mills and by neatly setting off closures and unemployment against the benefits of redundancy pay and increased wage-related benefits. The people of Lancashire and the textile industry are not prepared to be a figure in a book-keeping entry. The industry is too important for that.
If we think in those terms we ignore the basic nature of the people of Lancashire. The Lancashire people, if I may indulge in a very brief panegyric, are not emotional people, but modest people. So if we find them speaking in the emotional terms to which they have been resorting recently—terms which are alien to their nature—we have to take them seriously.
I can only say that this week I went over four mills in my constituency. The reception that I got in those mills was vastly different from the reception I got when I visited similar mills and spoke to similar people during the election, and I think it is fair that that should be brought home to my right hon. Friend.
Now may I explode one or two myths at this stage. I do not think it right to say that everybody in Lancashire thinks that the Labour Government have done nothing. They do not think that at all. Even an executive in a mill I visited over the weekend expressed great regard for what my right hon. Friend has done in bringing in global quotas.
It is not fair to suggest that the textile industry has not responded to pleas for its reorganisation and modernisation. One of the constituents in one of the mills I visited this weekend was a member of Higham's, one of the great names in textiles. This mill is to close for four

days over Easter. It will be called, to use a delicate phrase, a long Easter holiday, but we all know what it means. This mill has never had a stoppage this century. It even survived a flood. It would be a very sad testimony to my right hon. Friend to say that this mill could survive a flood, but could not survive the policies of the President of the Board of Trade.
I visited another mill, Stanhill Mill, in Oswaldtwistle, and there could be no more Lancashire-sounding name than Oswaldtwistle. And in this mill, which has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in modernisation, and where working conditions are perfection, those in charge say that they cannot possibly compete under the escalating level of Portuguese imports. There is nothing they can do to make themselves more efficient, yet they will be unable to compete if the level of these imports continues.
I want to put one or two questions to the President of the Board of Trade and I hope that he answers them concisely and firmly, because Lancashire people ask simple questions and like to have simple answers in firm language.
First, how does he expect us in Lancashire to compete with Portuguese wage levels? I am told that a textile worker there gets one-sixth of the wage of a textile worker in the United Kingdom. A skilled mechanic in Portugal gets paid £5 a week. I want to know from the President of the Board of Trade whether these figures are correct, and if they are, he expects us to compete with them.
Secondly, I would like to ask him whether it is true that we can expect sharp increases in exports from Portugal of doubled yarns and made-up items to this country in 1967, and if it is true, what he intends to do about it?
Thirdly, I would like to ask him about the export subsidy received by Portuguese exporters. Does this offend the E.F.T.A. or G.A.T.T. agreements, or does it not? How long need we wait before a proper study is carried out either by E.F.T.A. or by some other body of non-tariff barriers to trade in E.F.T.A., including existing rebate and subsidy arrangements?
Fourthly, why are yarn prices in Scandinavian markets higher than in the United Kingdom? It has been suggested


that this is so. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will assure us that it is not, but if it is true, what does he intend to do about it?
The Stockholm Convention says that one of its objects is to
secure that trade between member states takes place in conditions of fair competition.
How can my right hon. Friend say that this is fair competition?
I said that I would be brief and I intend to be brief. I finish on this note. A great deal has been said during recent months about conscience in this House and a state of mind, apparently, which is particularly prevalent among hon. Members on these benches who entered the House in 1966. So far, my voting record has been impeccably loyal, almost indecently loyal. I am not issuing a warning, but my conscience begins and ends in Lancashire. If some of the pledges which were firmly made during the General Election are not carried out by the President of the Board of Trade and the Government, I for one would have no great difficulty in not exercising my conscience if it came to a vote.

1.41 a.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) about what the President of the Board of Trade has been doing to fortify the cotton industry at home against undue encroachment by imports from overseas. It is not true, as was suggested earlier from the benches opposite, that the Government have done just nothing about it. I was in the Government when my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was doing a great deal about it and I hope that I gave him effective support in what he was trying to do.
There is no doubt that the global quota he succeeded in getting did help tremendously to stave off the rather dismal situation we face now. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House understand what the basic problem about the cotton industry and home-produced textiles is. We are trying to find a tolerance among the interests of the home industry, the interests of the Commonwealth and the interests of world trade. That is where we are trying to strike a balance.
In 1959, the then Government undertook an expensive reorganisation and re-equipment scheme of the industry with considerable public money rather than imposing restrictions upon imports from the Commonwealth and other oversea countries which might disrupt the economic advance of Commonwealth countries or make difficulties in the liberalisation of trade. That was their choice; public money to compensate people for going out of the industry rather than imposing import restrictions to keep them in business. Great hopes were built on the Cotton Reorganisation Scheme, but those of us who were concerned at the time will remember the warning given in the Fourth Report of the Estimates Committee for the 1961–62 Session. We had a debate on 28th June, 1962 on that Report.
In paragraph 26, that Report said:
The purpose behind the Cotton Industry Act, 1959, is clear enough. It was intended so to promote the modernisation and efficiency of the industry as to render it competitive both in the home and in the export markets. To this end large sums of money have been voted by Parliament, and Your Committee are satisfied that the expenditure has been applied in the manner intended by Parliament. It is no part of the duty of Your Committee to comment upon the policy which underlies the Act. Nevertheless they feel bound to record their conviction that, failing a speedy and satisfactory solution to the related problems of imports, marketing, and the fuller use of plant and machinery, much of the expenditure incurred will have been to no purpose.
That was the warning which we debated on 28th June, 1962, and the then President of the Board of Trade expressed the confident hope that the reorganisation scheme would provide a basis for a stable industry which could look forward to increasing prosperity. The then President of the Board of Trade announced on 6th June, 1962, a quota scheme which was presumably tailored to the prospect of a smaller industry with increased productivity. The two things together were the basis for a prosperous industry.
What has gone wrong? Why are we in this position again? Cotton debates are always depressing. This one is sombre. I would like the President of the Board of Trade to attempt a candid diagnosis of the present position. What are all these imports which are flowing in? Why is the disruption in the home market occurring now? I wonder


whether the explanation is that quotas were tolerable so long as we were maintaining a high level of home demand, but that when home demand fell, under the impact of the deflationary measures taken for economic reasons, the imports flowed in because many people, affected by the standstill on incomes, went for the cheaper articles rather than buy articles manufactured at home.
Is this the explanation? The President of the Board of Trade shakes his head. What is it, then? It is very difficult to pinpoint the precise problem now. I think that it was probably that the proportion of total demand allocated to imports was acceptable while the level of home demand was high, but it became disproportionate when the level of home demand fell.
It might be necessary to alter the import quota to take account of the fall in home demand so that the proportion of imports to home production might be maintained at the previous level. Whatever the explanation, I hope that we will hear it. Is it that the industry is failing to match the requirements of modern conditions? Is it the workers who are at fault. At least let us say that there has been no liner train trouble in the textile industry. No Minister has had to come to the House to be congratulated for a triumph over restrictive practices and stubborn trade union attitudes. There has been none of that in the textile industry. The Minister of Transport who represents a textile constituency must have been conscious of these facts when she was dealing with the liner train problem. The workers have been flexible. They have done what the industry has demanded of them. There have been no stoppages or demarcation disputes.
Lancashire has exported more textile workers and managers than any country in the world. Indeed, the competition we have faced from overseas has been generated by personnel who have gone out from Lancashire. In the Bombay cotton textile industry I met managers, workers and supervisors who had all come from Lancashire. I suggest that it is not the workers. They can do anything required of them.
Is it the management? I could not be quite so confident about that. Are the manufacturers trying to sell what they

make instead of making what will sell? Is this encroachment which we are now facing due to price? Is it due to design? What is it? I have looked at some cloth imported from Portugal and have compared it with similar cloth made in my own constituency at Todmorden. I thought that I could tell the difference between the two. I thought that I could feel the higher quality in the home-produced article. I therefore judged that people were not buying Portuguese cloth for quality. Therefore, they were presumably buying it for price. Is this it? If it is price, we must consider whether the price at which much of this cloth can be imported into this country is one upon which the home industry can compete on reasonable terms. Is it fair competition?
One thing I hope of this Commission is that we shall get an adequate diagnosis and, what is more, that we shall know what it is. The whole country is entitled to know more about the plight of the textile industry. They hear enough about it at different times. We ought to know a good deal more of its real difficulties.
I do not think that this is an occasion for party political reproach. This is an occasion when we should be joining in mutual sorrow at the disappointment of mutual hopes, because we all hoped for a better future for the textile industry after the reorganisation scheme.
In conclusion, I ask my right hon. Friend also to be candid about the powers he has. When we say that the Commission should have teeth, let us be clear what we mean. This is perhaps where it was unwise to have used the word "regulate" in the document which has been so frequently quoted—the Labour Party statement of July, 1963—without fully understanding the implications of that word, certainly in the minds of those in the industry. Those in the industry believed that "regulate" meant control, possibly prohibition, but, certainly, a discipline which would be meaningful in the context of this problem.
We all know, however, that measures of that kind cannot easily be used within the framework of our international obligations and of our duty to our Commonwealth friends. So if we do not mean a word we should not use it. We ought to understand its possible meaning to others


and the disappointment which will follow failure to implement what appeared to be a pledge.
But we have these difficulties. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will be quite frank about them. The Government have got to use the teeth, because, after all, it is a Government matter. If there are to be breaches of international obligations, if there are to be import quotas where import quotas are already subject to agreement between Governments, it is only the Government who can deal with that sort of problem. I do not think that any Commission can be allowed to usurp or to utilise the powers of the government when it is obviously important that Governments themselves should do their own business.
I think that the two things I have mentioned are important: what is the diagnosis of the President of the Board of Trade, and what power has he to deal with the situation? How does he propose to use what power he may have? We do not want any beating about the bush. We have sat here long enough to have an answer and we should have it, frankly and fully, from the President of the Board of Trade. We want no "flannelling". Let us have it straight. Let us hear what it is that the Government proposes and let us be told something we can tell our constituents. Let us have something for them which is badly lacking at the present time.

1.56 a.m.

Mr. Joel Barnett: It has been difficult not to exaggerate the situation as it is at present, but I am sorry that there has been exaggeration. I am sorry because we have a strong enough case without any exaggeration at all. My fear is that that exaggeration may do positive harm to the textile industry. I myself said some strong things in the debate on 13th December and I do not retract one word, for the people of Lancashire have been too decent and they have had a very raw deal.
I do not want to go back over all that has been said. The debate started with a very fine speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp). The people of Lancashire want action.

They do not want vague promises. They know about imports from various parts of the world, but now they do not want the final death blow from the Portuguese textile industry. They know of factors which have been operating against them; the destocking, the ending of the surcharge, the fact that the E.F.T.A. duties came off on 1st January, are some of the immediate causes; but this is all far too superficial to claim that these are the sole causes.
The Lancashire textile industry is subject to factors which do not apply in other industries. It is a contracting industry, and has been for a long time now. In other industries, managements can plan for the end of a period of contraction so that they can get on with expansion once again; but in the textile industry there appears to be too many who are ready to accept the situation by actually speeding up the contraction to an extent which would appear to amount almost to an acquiescence in the complete liquidation of the industry.
I would put in that category the speech by the Chairman of Viyella, not long ago, in which there was the implied suggestion that the workers in the industry should get out. No doubt, many will. About 10 per cent. of the working population of Littleborough in my constituency, who were recently given notice by Viyella, feel that there has been a total disregard of their interests and they may even take the hint and having got out never return. That would cause only more trouble. Viyella, in the not distant future might then well find itself desperately short of labour. Then, we should hear such things as the workers not being prepared to work the shift system, and that sort of thing.
It is not fair to expect the workers to disrupt their day to day lives when they do not know from one day to the next what their future is to be. They must be told that this is not the death blow. The workers in this industry, and all connected with it, are united about what they want to hear tonight. They want to know what the remedy is. The least they are entitled to is an assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that he feels, as many of us feel, that there is a future for the industry. I should like to have that assurance from him.
The Government deserve some congratulation, together with the Textile Council, the employers and the trade unions, for starting to look at the problem of productivity. But it is utter folly to consider increasing productivity, on the one hand, and, on the other, allowing an enormous influx of imports. The global quota has been referred to. It was reluctantly accepted by the industry. But since then we have had superimposed the enormous increase in imports from Portugal. We are entitled to ask the Government what further action they propose.
Last week, we had the announcement of the Imports Commission. Some hon. Members asked that it should have real powers. I urge that, too. I should be interested to know what the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) has to say on this. What sort of real powers does he seek? Since when have the Opposition been converted to giving powers to the Imports Commission, or to any commission at all? While I accept that some hon. Members opposite have a sincere regard for the industry, there is a great danger of feeling that the Opposition Front Bench is not so sincere when it says that it wants the Commission to have real powers. If that is so, the Opposition should tell us what sort of real powers and Imports Commission they would have.
The hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) made a very lengthy speech, but there was not one constructive suggestion in it. However, some constructive points were made by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson). He at least suggested some of the powers he would like to see the Commission have. I agree that some of the powers which he suggested would be very useful, but I do not think they went far enough.
It can be argued that if the imports are low enough, we do not need an Imports Commission. On the other hand, if the imports are too high, the Commission is of no use. But it is not just the level of imports which is the problem. Price disruption is one of the most serious factors affecting the industry. I accept that the level of imports must be fixed by the Government. We cannot give that task to the Imports Commission. But, as I have said, I want the Commission to have real powers. The word

"regulate", used by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, has been much quoted. I do not understand how imports can possibly be regulated unless the Commission has power to buy and stock. How else can we have real control and regulation of imports?
The President of the Board of Trade, in reply to questions by myself and other hon. Members on his recent statement, said that he could not give powers which must remain with the Board of Trade. I do not see why. We have all sorts of bodies to which powers are given. I do not understand what sort of argument that is supposed to be. On the other hand, the Opposition and the mill owners should tell us whether they favour the idea of this sort of Imports Commission. After all, we know that they are importers of foreign textiles. Do they really want this sort of Commission? My understanding is that they do not.
If we had the sort of thing which I suggest, it would be said that there would be difficulties under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I recently read the Agreement again and I saw nothing wrong with the general idea of having an Imports Commission along the lines I have suggested. Everything would depend on how the Commission worked. When one thinks of how the G.A.T.T. is stretched by other countries one cannot help feeling that we are a little naive in working to every dot and comma. Others are laughing their heads off while our constituents are unemployed.
That brings me to the immediate problem. Unless something is done very quickly many more mills will close in the next few weeks, before we get an opportunity to get on with expansion once again. Many mills all over Lancashire have been keeping workers going, some on short time. They have been doing it by building up substantial stocks. It has been done by some very fine managements, which are concerned and want to keep their workers on the books. But they now face a serious situation; their stocks are so high that they cannot go on any longer and they are not able to get the finance to increase the value of those stocks.
If my right hon. Friend can tonight give an assurance, as I think that he can, that there is a future for the industry and that it is likely to get out


of the period of recession in the very near future, and if he gives a further assurance that he will inform the banks that they should give additional assistance for stocking, I believe that many mills that would otherwise close down would be able to keep going over the short period until we overcome the recession.
I do not want to say any more, because it is late and this has been a long debate. The people of Lancashire have some wonderful qualities. They have been used to giving a good day's work for a not particularly high day's pay, and do not deserve to be let down now. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us that he will not let them down.

2.7 a.m.

Mr. Michael McGuire: Although I do not represent what is known as a "cotton constituency" and represent what has always been known as a "mining constituency", I have more cotton textile factories in my constituency than mines, though not as many people work in them as are employed in the mines and travel out of the "Wigan Union" back into my constituency.
Cotton is always of great interest to Lancashire Members. The number of Members from both sides of the House who have spoken tonight is an indication of the growing concern we all feel about the fate of this great textile industry. It is only right and proper that we have taken this opportunity of discussing the situation.
Mention has been made in the debate of the recessions and partial booms the industry has experienced over the years, which have resulted in the industry always sarting back on a lower plane after a recession. We well know the capacity of the industry to withstand that kind of body blow, but the industry cannot stand mutilation.
I do not want to repeat all that has been said. The debate was well started by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), and the position was further clarified in an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn). The problem of the Lancashire and Cheshire textile industry is whether it can survive as a viable force if the country must absorb the record percentage

of imports that we are told are landing, amounting to about 33 per cent. of the market.
I believe—and I am sure that most hon. Members take the same view—that what we are discussing is the way to remedy this situation. We are suffering, in the first place, from having to open the door to foreign imports. Although it has not been mentioned as much as the case of Portugal in the debate, we have this historical commitment to the Commonwealth. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said, surely the best way to demonstrate that we want to help these developing countries is not by destroying our own textile industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) said that what we are demonstrating is some kind of North-West Lancashire-Cheshire nationalism. I do not say that we would stand in opposition to the party we are all proud to represent, but, certainly, we would remind the Government that we have a duty to protect the Lancashire textile industry.
Lancashire is only asking—and let us not be euphemistic about it—for what all the other major industries have, a great measure of protection. It is the Government's job to provide it. In his statesmanlike speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) had to say that what we want is protection, that we need a commission with teeth. We all echo that view.
The attitude of the workers has also been mentioned and it is important to reiterate it. The textile workers have a first-class record of trying to be productive. When they have been asked to increase productivity, they have done so. They have disrupted their social life in the process, because they have not always worked on the shifts they are now working. But the industry has been capitalised to such an extent that it is logical to work two and three shifts in order to get full value, and that is what they are doing. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby said, there has been no "liner train" dispute in the textile industry. They have got on with the job.
It is no good beating about the bush and deciding the technical meaning of words like "regulate". The promise


made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was bandied about in Lancashire. All Labour candidates in Lancashire got it. This was the statement that was to provide the solution to the industry's problems. I believe that we have reneged on it. One of my hon. Friends said that he was surprised that we had, but what surprises me more is that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister seemed to indicate that he thought the Government had honoured the pledge. I think that he has everyone fooled if he thinks that is the case.
I want the pledge to be honoured. I attended that meeting in Manchester three weeks ago. There is no question but that there was seething indignation there. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East had to make the most diplomatic speech of his life—and I have heard him make a few. It was a very good speech. But he and I and the others present realised that what we really need is a commission with teeth to give the protection for the industry that we are seeking.
My right hon. Friend the President has waited a long time to reply, and I do not want to prolong his wait. In concluding my remarks, I put to him these two questions. First, what level of unemployment has there to be before a district is scheduled a developed district? I asked that question earlier in relation to the "Wigan Union", which is the name that we give to the constituencies immediately surrounding Wigan, my own included.
When a mill closes, in some ways it is like closing a pit. It is equally sad. It never comes back. Many of the people thrown out of work as a result are in the over-40 age group, and prospects are not good in an area which has the sort of unemployment level that there is. What stops such an area being scheduled? If the cotton industry has gone and is not likely to come back, it is our duty to provide something else.
Secondly, when we are debating the decline of a great industry, should we not ask ourselves which other country would permit imports from foreign countries to destroy one of its basic industries? I think that none would. No other country would be as foolish and as openhanded as we have been.
I hope that tonight my right hon. Friend will be able to give me some satisfaction, at least on the first of my questions.

2.16 a.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): Tonight's debate has brought to light a great deal of information about the present situation in Lancashire, and I have been kept fully informed of the facts, not merely by the Textile Council, but by hon. Members, including my right hon. Friends the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Transport. I understand the anxieties which are felt in the industry today.
All that I have heard confirms the rightness of the Government's decision two years ago to work for a global quota on imports of textiles from the low-cost countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) agreed with that at the beginning of the debate. By the beginning of 1966, a year ago, the Government had carried out their pledge to establish this global quota, after a full year of very difficult negotiations. It is actually the most comprehensive protection against imports which the cotton industry has ever had, and it is far more drastic than any other British manufacturing industry enjoys.
Whereas up till 1966 only 17 countries were covered by import quotas for textiles into this country, the total now covered is 89. The global quota covers 67 which are both inside and outside the Commonwealth, and another 12 countries, including the Soviet Union, are covered by bilateral quotas.
As the House knows, the global quota will be effective to the end of 1970 and gives the industry a five-year breathing space, from the beginning of 1966, to carry out the sweeping technical changes which everyone knows must be made if the industry is to meet the much fiercer competition which is likely after 1970. The quota is designed to prevent imports from the 89 countries increasing as a percentage of United Kingdom consumption during this period, and that is the pledge which we gave to the industry.
Several of my hon. Friends have said that there is no other country which would tolerate this level of imports as a percentage of consumption. Of course,


our percentage is very high, but since Norway has been mentioned in this debate I might perhaps mention that, as against our one-third of imports as a proportion of consumption, the proportion in Scandinavia as a whole is about 50 per cent. and in Norway is as high as 60 per cent., so we are not unique.

Mr. J. T. Price: I think that I am entitled to ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that Norway does not have a significant historic textile industry. She is bound to take imports because she does not manufacture the stuff to any degree at all.

Mr. Jay: It is not as much as ours, but I am pointing out that we are not the country with the highest level of all as a percentage of home consumption.
Nevertheless, though in any short period of falling home consumption the pressure of imports may temporarily increase under this system, and this is clearly so, the opposite is bound to happen when consumption is rising faster than the average. Textile imports from all countries outside the Commonwealth and E.F.T.A. must, in addition, bear import duty before they are sold in the British market.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) asked for a candid diagnosis of the present situation following the working of the import quota, and how it was that these imports were flowing in. The short answer, in the sense in which my right hon. Friend used the expression, is that they are not flowing in. Imports have fallen, and not risen, during the past year, and I shall give him a candid diagnosis as I see it, which I think we ought to have.
A study of the facts and figures shows that the difficulties of the industry in recent months has been due, together with changes in taste and technology which are going on all the time, to de-stocking in the distributive trades, and not to imports. The fact is that imports from all sources, including imports for processing and re-export, did not rise in the second half of 1966 compared with the second half of 1965. They were actually lower. As I think most people will remember, the early months of 1966 were affected by imports from India and Hong Kong which increased temporarily

because we refused to allow a carry over of the 1965 quota.

Mr. Mapp: Mr. Mapp rose—

Mr. Jay: I think that I had better go on with the story to get it clear.
As a result, extra exports from India and Hong Kong in the last few months of 1965 arrived in the first few weeks of 1966. We refused this carry-over, as hon. Members will remember, at the request of the industry, and, therefore, the import figures for 1966 as a whole are consequently misleading.
However, the figures for the second half of the year are representative. They show the effect of the global quota beginning to work, and they are as follows: in the second half of 1966, total imports of cotton cloth were actually 42 million square yards, or 15 per cent., lower at 247 million square yards compared with 289 million square yards in the second half of 1965. This decline in imports was much greater than the decline in the home production of cloth in the period, which was only 9·7 per cent. down over the same period.

Mr. Mapp: Mr. Mapp rose—

Mr. Jay: Perhaps I might give my hon. Friend one other fact.
I have so far spoken about cloth. Total imports of yarn in the second half were 7·3 per cent. lower than in the second half of 1965.

Mr. Mapp: I hope that my right hon. Friend will clarify his statement. It is my impression that the imports which have been coming in and used within the country have been somewhat as they were before, but when he includes in his figure the cloth which is coming in for re-export there is obviously a very misleading result to his argument.

Mr. Jay: I am advised that this is not so, that these are the representative figures and that the cloth for re-export is not a high proportion of the total imports.

Sir D. Glover: The import surcharge was removed in November. What was the sort of pattern in December, January and February?

Mr. Jay: I am coming to that stage of the story.
Imports of yarn, cloth and made-up goods from the 89 restricted countries were also lower in 1966 than the 196264 average. Imports of yarn, for instance, were 22,536,000 lbs. in 1966, compared with an average for 1962–64 of 24,497,000. Imports of cloth and made-up goods were also markedly smaller in the same period. As a proportion of United Kingdom consumption, imports of cotton textiles from the restricted countries also fell from 31·7 per cent. in 1964 to 29 per cent. in 1966. Therefore, the general picture is of a fall and not a rise in imports, as some have thought who have not studied the figures.
That does not apply to every month, and could not do so. In December, 1966, and January, 1967, imports were temporarily heavier because of the ending of the surcharge on 30th November and the E.F.T.A. duties on 31st December. That increase is bound to be temporary from the quota-restricted countries because they are limited for the year as a whole. The interesting point is that for the whole four months ended 31st January, 1965, which included the two post-surcharge months, total imports of cloth from the restricted countries were nearly 10 per cent. lower than in the same four months a year earlier. Portugal, of course, is not restricted by the global quota, which is why we have had special consultations with the Portuguese Government. I will come to that later.
What, then, has been the real cause of the industry's anxieties over the last few months? Naturally, the Government's economic measures of last July, which have, incidentally, effectively brought the balance of payments under control, have had some effect on home demand for textiles, as on other things, but the effect has been quite small. The drop in clothing sales at home between the first and second halves of 1966 was only 3 per cent. Therefore, since consumption is only slightly down, and both imports and home output are substantially down, there must have been a decline in stocks, probably mainly in the hands of the larger distributors.
I agree that stocks have risen at the production end, but I am advised by more than one expert in the trade that this distributive destocking was due less to the higher interest rates than to pessimistic estimates of consumer demand this

spring and summer, which may well prove to have been exaggerated. I suspect that, in some cases, it has been greatly overdone. When the destocking movement is over we shall have to wait for the restocking to begin the demand on manufacturers for the most popular types. Actual restocking is then likely to pick up more quickly.
Since the quota also sets a limit on imports from all the 89 countries, home manufacturers are bound to feel the benefit of this higher demand. It should not be assumed, therefore, that the recent difficulties of the industry, in the acute form of the last few months, will necessarily continue much longer.
There are some other reasons for seeing an improvement coming from various directions. To give one, fortunately the Soviet purchasing authorities, following the visit of Mr. Kosygin, have placed some large orders for textiles in this country in the last few weeks. We very much welcome these orders, which come at a favourable moment. In addition, the motor industry is already recovering, and this will help to expand the demand for textiles.

Sir D. Glover: Would the right hon. Gentleman ask his officials to look into this matter again? I am reliably informed that, from the sheeting point of view, if we do not produce or import another yard of sheeting we have enough stock in this country to last for the next nine months.

Mr. Jay: Sheets represent a particular case, because there were exceptional imports from Portugal in this respect

Dr. Winstanley: Would not the right hon. Gentleman also agree that destocking in the distributive trade has been partly due to the Selective Employment Tax?

Mr. Jay: Not as I am advised. I am advised by those who have felt the effects of it and are in contact with the trade that it is mainly due to forward estimates of demand.
So far as there has been a problem of imports during recent months, it has, therefore, been largely concentrated on Portugal. In Portugal's case, the ending of the surcharge and the E.F.T.A. tariff in January of this year coincided with acute difficulty and credit shortage in Portugal's own new textile industry—I am not sure


that this has been generally realised—and exports to the United Kingdom consequently rose for all these reasons.
I did, in fact, warn Dr. d'Oliveria, the Portugese Economic Minister, well in advance, as long ago as last October, that a disruptive flow of imports would create great difficulties for us, because, apart from the internal situation here, it would be regarded as unfair internationally by the other quota restricted countries. As the House knows, I have been in communication with Dr. d'Oliveira over the months since then, culminating in a thorough discussion in Stockholm early this month.
As a result of this, as I have said, and I repeat, I cannot say more than that I have every reason to think that the heavy imports from Portugal of the last few months will be exceptional and that, over the present year as a whole, they will be at a substantially lower rate than they have recently been. Incidentally, hon. Members have not mentioned tonight that we ourselves are also exporting to Portugal more than £2 million worth of textiles a year.

Mr. Barnett: Woollens.

Mr. Jay: Not wholly woollens.

Mr. Barnett: Mainly woollens.

Mr. Jay: Not by any means, although we could not hope to export woollen textiles to Portugal if we did not take some textiles in return.
In any case, in view of what has been said tonight, I wonder whether hon. Members realise that we export far more textiles to the rest of E.F.T.A. than the rest of E.F.T.A. exports to us? In 1966, we exported £53 million worth of textiles to the rest of E.F.T.A. and took only £17 million worth of textiles in return. This is another fact which one must bear in mind. Nevertheless, and in spite of that, I am also anxious to make full use of our anti-dumping powers, where-ever real dumping can be proved. This is one way to meet the charges of price disruption.
Real dumping is defined in our legislation, carried by the Government of the party opposite, as selling here at prices lower than those charged in the home market of the exporting country and

causing material injury to our own industry. The industry does not, of course, mean for this purpose the entire textile industry, but those producing the product in question. Our anti-dumping powers naturally apply—and I think that there is misunderstanding about this—to imports from E.F.T.A., the Commonwealth and any other country.
I have, therefore, asked the new Textile Council and other organisations in the industry, as well as our commercial posts abroad, to co-operate actively with the Board of Trade to provide evidence to enable us to introduce anti-dumping duties. If any Member in the House, or any hon. Member not here tonight, can provide us with evidence I shall be extremely grateful, but mere assertion is not enough to justify legislative action.
We are already following up a good deal of the information supplied to us and I am hopeful that the new Textile Imports Commission will be able to assist actively in this, also.

Sir Frank Pearson: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, in his understanding with Portugal, specific arrangements have been made to give some form of protection to the sheeting industry?

Mr. Jay: I can assure the hon. Member that in my conversations with the Portuguese Government sheeting was not overlooked.
The Government have also, in addition to what I have said about anti-dumping legislation, now carried out their pledge both to reorganise the Cotton Board and to set up an Imports Commission that is part of it. I would have been glad, frankly, to have done both earlier, and to cover a wider area of the textile industry, including wool in the Textile Council, but we have to get agreement from the main sections of the trade and have neither the power nor the wish to exert compulsion, so we have had to go at the rate at which agreement can be reached.
I have heard it asserted, even in the House, that the Labour Party promised before the last election to set up a body to take over the buying of textile imports. No such promise—

Mr. Boardman: Absolute nonsense.

Mr. Jay: No such promise to set up a commission to buy textile imports was


made, either in the speech by the Foreign Secretary or in the election manifesto at either election.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) that those who overstate this case destroy other people's sympathy for it; and I advise hon. Members not to do that. What my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary actually said on this subject in 1963 in Manchester was that a Labour Government would set up a Commission, and I quote:
which could be a new and separate organisation, or possibly a development of the existing Cotton Board".
That is precisely what we have done. No statement was ever made that a buying commission would be set up. Since then, we have been pressed by the industry to set up an Imports Commission and I say to those who have depreciated the value of this Commission that if they do that they are in conflict with prevailing opinion on both sides.

Mr. Barnett: Mr. Barnett rose—

Mr. Jay: I will just finish.
I entirely share the view of the Textile Council that a Commission could do great work in collecting and supplying information about possible dumping, about price levels and about possible evasion of the regulations and subsidisation that may occur.

Mr. Barnett: My right hon. Friend quoted from his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but he did not quote the words that the Foreign Secretary used—that where necessary we would regulate imports. Can he tell us how the Imports Commission will regulate imports?

Mr. Jay: Since the Board of Trade is doing the regulation of imports it is clearly not necessary for the Commission to do it. Several speakers this evening have said that it is a job of Government to carry out the policing part of the operation, and that they should not try to push it on to someone else. I quite agree that this is a job of the Government, since we have the global quota, and as the Government are using their regulating powers to carry it out it is not necessary for anyone else to do it at the same time.
This Commission will have power to do all those things I have enumerated and, in addition, to make any recommendations it likes to the Board of Trade. It will, therefore, have the authority it needs, short of, as I said, the legal power to control imports—a power which must necessarily remain in the hands of the Board of Trade because, quite apart from anything else, that power has been conferred on the Board of Trade by Parliament, and no one but Parliament has the power to confer it on anyone else.

Sir D. Glover: But the right hon. Gentleman is missing the point of speech after speech. Will the Board of Trade exercise the powers itself if the Commission makes a recommendation, or will it ignore the recommendation?

Mr. Jay: Once again, I was just coming to that point. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is an important point.
I was saying that I have no power to divest myself of this authority and confer it on the Commission or anyone else, but that since the Government are carrying it out there is also no need to because, apart from the legal position, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby said, the actual import control is clearly, in any event, a matter of Government policy. As several hon. Members have said, the Government are, in effect, policing the whole policy.
The pledge I can certainly give is that I and the Board of Trade will consider very seriously any recommendations or advice we receive from the Commission and the Council—and, indeed, any information—before I take decisions on the use of the powers that Parliament has conferred on me and my Department. I can also very readily give the assurance for which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East asked, that I shall always treat their views with the greatest respect.

Sir Frank Pearson: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that presumably the assurance he has given now does not extend to any reduction of the quota before 1970?

Mr. Jay: The assurance I have given is general; that I shall certainly, before taking any decisions, seriously consider any recommendations or suggestions which the Commission likes to make.
The Government have also—and this is another point which, very naturally, was raised by various hon. Members—as part of our general policy for the cotton industry, been steadily pressing the other great industrial countries to import a fairer share of their textile consumption. If the Scandinavian countries have a good record in this respect, it is quite true that other great industrial countries have a very much worse record than they have. I have taken the opportunity at every international meeting to press this, and progress is gradually—one might say, painfully—being made. It is not something in which we can make a dramatic leap forward. The best opportunity now is the Kennedy Round, and it is our firm objective here to ensure that the major advanced countries modify their present import barriers against textile imports from the less advanced countries. I am not at all without hope that something may occur there, but in view of the United Kingdom's present large imports, compared with so many of those other countries, we certainly do not propose ourselves making any further concessions in the Kennedy Round on cotton textile imports.
So much for the international trading aspects of this matter. Meanwhile, in Lancashire itself, despite the destocking movement, which, as I have said, is, I believe, likely to be temporary, and despite some alarmist statements made about unemployment, I think that we should recognise that even at the winter peak in February, and at a time when the end of the surcharge has coincided with the worst of this recession, unemployment in the North-West Region as a whole in February was only 2.5 per cent., or slightly less than the national average.
Indeed, in the cotton belt itself, which might have been expected to be worst affected, it was only 2.6 per cent., or exactly the same as the national average. Even in the most heavily concentrated cotton towns, even in February, it was only, in a very few cases, over 3 per cent.
I think that this absence of serious unemployment in Lancashire, even in midwinter, is extremely creditable and is due to the fact that Lancashire has been outstandingly successful in bringing in new and diversified industry and employment as the cotton labour force has

contracted. I think that most people recognise this, and it is going on now.
Certainly, as we all know, a number of individual mills have closed; but in most cases—I do not say all—this has been part of rationalisation schemes designed to concentrate output on the most efficient units. It is the more encouraging, I think, to learn that in a large number of cases the old or fairly old mills—we hear about closures, but we do not always hear this—are being taken over by new and expanding industries which will bring more diversified work and life to the cotton towns.
I have been inquiring into the use of these old mills, and at my request I have been given by Viyella, which has been mentioned this evening, some striking evidence of the extent to which these mills are being rapidly bought for use by industries often new to the area. In some cases recently it has only been a matter of a week or two after the announcement of a closure when they have been taken over by new industries.

Mr. J. T. Price: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He may be interested to know that only a few hours ago, before this debate began, I was talking to the Chairman of the Viyella International Corporation in this Palace. He could not wait for the debate to start, because he had other appointments.
That may have been the experience of his corporation in finding new occupations for the mills, having closed them, but if my right hon. Friend will get in touch with the Director of the Lancashire Industrial Development Corporation—of which, incidentally, I am a member—in Manchester, Mr. Allen, he will find quite a different story—that of the almost impossible task of finding uses for many of the old mills that are littering the countryside and ought to be pulled down. So it is really a wrong-headed picture that my right hon. Friend is giving on this. The Viyella experience is certainly not the experience of many other sectors of the industry.

Mr. Jay: The interesting thing is that when a large number of these old mills are found to be usable they are being taken over by other interests. Of course, I am in touch with the association mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Sir D. Glover: It would be helpful to the people in the industry to find how many were employed in the 1,000 mills which have gone out of production during the last 10 or 15 years.

Mr. Jay: It is the experience of Vyella that the labour force tends to be higher after the change-over to new industry. Over the last four years or so Vyella has released 5½ million square feet of space and almost all of this has been taken for productive use by other firms often employing more people than before. I could give a list of six or 10 mills taken over. For instance, the Wensley Fold Mill, at Blackburn, was taken in September, 1966, by the Black Corporation, the Astley Bridge Mill, at Bolton, in April, 1966, by Henry Wigfall, and Lever Bridge, also at Bolton, by Lorival Ltd. Imperial Tobacco, British Insulated Cables and many well-known firms have taken mills at Preston, Leigh and Wigan and in other areas and a number of negotiations are going on. If we had more time I could give a long list.
This is not merely a changeover to non-textile industries, but also a modernisation of the textile industry itself. It is converting mills at Burnley and Chorley to more modern textile processes, including warp knitting. I agree with those who say that the industry has a great future. We would be foolish to be too depressed about it. Let us not forget that many modern re-equipped mills are working on three shifts with greater efficiency and lower costs than the older mills a few years ago. This is one reason why we can take a reasonably optimistic view about the future of the industry.
As to new work being brought in, it is clearly in the interests of Lancashire's future that this diversification should take place and continue. The Board of Trade, in its industrial development certificate policy, will assist the development of new industries in Lancashire wherever there are major releases of labour from the cotton trade. We must not forget, however, that only a few months ago there were intense labour shortages in many of these areas and some of the lowest unemployment percentages ever recorded in our history.
When one looks rather further ahead of the future of the industry it becomes clear that a great deal of further technical

advances and rationalisation has to be achieved if the industry is to face the fiercer competition we must expect after the global quota comes to an end in 1970. This is the view of the most progressive and constructive minds in the industry. That is why I warmly welcome the productivity survey now being conducted by the Textile Council which is likely to be even more vital for the industry's future than the advice it gives us on imports.
Changes in demand and changes of technique are moving rapidly, for instance, towards the new fibres and towards warp knitting. Unless Lancashire keeps pace with them it is bound to be left behind, whatever we do about imports or anything else. We can congratulate ourselves and the industry that big advances in output per man with three-shift working, with notable help from the trade unions, have increased in recent years. Otherwise, the industry would have contracted very much faster than it has. We should pay tribute to the co-operation which both unions and management have shown in contributing to this achievement. Nevertheless, we are not complacent as well as not being unduly pessimistic. I hope that we shall not be either. In spite of the increased success in recent years, the figures of productivity in the United Kingdom industry, compared with their competitors show that we have a long way to go.
I will quote a few figures which we ought to face. If we ignore wages and comparative wages levels altogether and consider yarn production per spindle as measured by kilograms per year, the figure for 1964, the latest year for which we have the G.A.T.T. figures, was 43·5 in the United Kingdom, compared with 53 in Italy, 63 in France, 65 in Japan, 71 in Belgium, 68 in Austria and 86 in Portugal—So it is not just a matter of wage levels in Portugal—and 126 in the United States. If we consider cloth production per loom the comparison is rather more favourable to the United Kingdom. The figure was 2,100 here, which is better than Portugal or Japan, but worse than France or Austria and slightly less than half that of Belgium and of the United States.
We must not avert our eyes from these facts, either. If our productivity is lower than that of other countries it is bound to encourage imports and hamper exports.

Sir Douglas Glover: They have protected markets.

Mr. Jay: They have protected markets and we to a great extent have a protected market, also. It is not the only element in determining productivity, as the hon. Member knows quite well.
It is essential, if we are to make the industry prosperous, both in periods of recession such as in the last few months, and periods of boom such as 1965 to 1966, for all concerned to press on even more rapidly with the conversion of the industry into a multi-fibre, multi-process industry that is more economical in manpower than it is already. This has to be done if textile manufacturing in this country is to become really efficient and survive after the present five years breathing space, as I believe it can.
We have many advantages, so let us not be too depressed or pessimistic. We have bigger units in the industry with bigger resources. We have the reorganised Textile Council and the Imports Commission as promised, and the protection of the comprehensive quota system for several years ahead. I hope, therefore, that the best possible use will now be made by the industry of the time left to make itself viable. My Department will do everything possible to see that it is.

CIVIL AVIATION (DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME)

2.58 a.m.

Mr. Cranky Onslow: This is a daft time of the night to start talking about Britain's civil aircraft development programme which involves hundreds of millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money, and employs some of the most highly skilled manpower in the country, but it is the only chance we seem to get.
If there were more time, and if it were not so late, I would have liked to have taken up a number of points concerning investment grants and the workings of the Air Transport Licensing Board, both of which at present constitute a considerable drag on the expansion of our civil aviation and, therefore, on the potential of our aircraft industry.
I want to concentrate on two specific projects: the B.A.C. 211 and the Concord. The House will know that the 211

is a 185-seater project which is a second generation derivative of the British Aircraft Corporation's very successfull 111 and the VC 10. B.E.A. has applied to buy at least 30, and possibly 40, 211s to come into service from 1971 to meet the capacity gap it will then be facing.
The Chairman of B.E.A., Sir Anthony Milward, has said:
For B.E.A. to remain competitive in the European air travel market … we must by 1971 have economic aircraft to do our job".
He describes the 211 as having
a very considerable export potential. It is a natural successor to those aircraft operated by airlines flying medium-size jets such as the 111 and the Caravelle".
Sir Anthony has also called the 211
the great remaining hope of the British civil aircraft industry".
These are strong words and the arguments in favour of the 211 are, I believe, strong ones.
Where, then, is the catch? o The catch is that the Government, or at least the Minister of Technology, have got themselves all wrapped up in the European airbus project, as it has come to be known. Although B.E.A. has said that its choice of the 211
will in no way diminish our interest in the so-called airbus
which is really just a 250-seater aircraft to be built on an Anglo-French-German basis, on an in-service date of 1972 at earliest, there is a considerable area of conflict between these two aircraft projects.
Part of the conflict is technical. It seems unlikely, for instance, that both aircraft can have Rolls-Royce engines. The 211 needs two engines of 30,000 lb. thrust each. The European airbus needs two engines of 50,000 lb. thrust each. It is doubtful, to say the least, whether Rolls-Royce could do both in the necessary time. Rolls-Royce may well take the view that, if it goes ahead with the 50,000-pounders this would give it the second option of engining another airbus, let us say perhaps the Lockheed 1011.
A good deal of the conflict is what I can only call aero-political. We know how obsessed the Minister of Technology has become with European aircraft cooperation as a political exercise, as a bargaining counter in other negotiations, if not just as an end in itself. I believe


that co-operation in this field ought to have as its main end the building of aircraft for which there is a genuine market. This is the only real purpose which can justify such co-operation.
The airbus market is a problematical one. A number of European airlines have agreed that there will be a need for 50 250-seater aircraft in Europe by 1975. B.E.A. says that it will want "some" from 1974 or 1975 onwards, probably the latter date. By 1980 there could be a market for an airbus of between 100 and 200 aircraft. But a European airbus would be behind the Americans, in all probability. The Lockheed 1011 will be there first and many European airlines will want to buy that. Even Lufthansa, the German airline, is likely to have a strong preference in favour of the Lockheed.
I wonder whether the Minister really feels that the German Government have the power to order Lufthansa to buy the European airbus. I also wonder whether the Italian Government could order Alitalia, or the Dutch Government could order K.L.M., or the Scandinavian Governments could order S.A.S., to buy the European airbus simply because it was made in Europe.
I suggest that, if we proceed with the airbus, we face considerable outlay. We face all the problems of tri-national cooperation, which must be very much more difficult than simply bi-national co-operation such as we already have between ourselves and the French. We have a good chance of being beaten at the post by the American competition. This does not seem to be necessarily the best way of keeping Europe in the subsonic aircraft business and it certainly is not the only way.
What about the 211? The market for that is problematical, too. This aircraft is not built any more than the airbus is yet built. But this specification does fill a known gap, and a gap where there is as yet no known competition. The passenger growth projections leave an unfilled demand in the 185–250 seater range by 1971 when a lot of airlines will be needing new aircraft. We have already seen the dangers of traffic loss through inadequate capacity in the difficulties which B.O.A.C. is experiencing at this very moment. It will be true that

the frequency with which the 211 can operate will be much more economical than that with which the airbus can operate.
This 211 is not an interim aircraft. It has a market right through the 1970s, probably longer, to replace the existing 100 to 130 seaters. It could sell in the United States. Indeed, I believe that it is more likely to sell to American airlines than the airbus, and more aircraft will be needed in any case. It could be made European. There is no reason at all why much of the work on it could not be contracted out to the French or German manufacturers; and it would be a quiet aircraft, which makes it a subject of importance in the minds of many, many members of the public today.
I ask for an assurance that a decision on this will be made on the real merits of the case, and not on aero-political grounds. I ask particularly that this should not be what I would term "a Concord-type decision". The Concord was a bold decision, taken in time—and taken, incidentally, by the last Conservative Government—and one for which this country has reason to be grateful. But this other decision is strictly orthodox and time now is not on our side any more.
I now turn to Concord, which is a matter of business, and not of reputation, and I do not ask tonight for a progress report; but I do ask, first, whether the Minister can take this opportunity to clear up confusion and real doubt which has arisen as a result of what he is reported to have told the Labour Party's aviation group, to the effect that the Government are "saddled with Concord and would still like to cancel it".
Secondly, what action is the Minister taking to stand up for the Concord venture? What is he doing to counter some of the damaging criticism, such as that, especially, in the B.B.C.'s "Panorama" programme of 27th February? I hope that he has seen a transcript of it, but I will quote one or two passages to illustrate my claim that it is damaging and ought to be clearly refuted.
Mr. Charlton, introducing the discussion, made a number of statements not favourable to Concord. First, he said:
Three years ago, Britain tried to pull out".


But that was the position two years ago, or nine months ago; but the emphasis on that point is not particularly encouraging. Nor was it encouraging to hear that
At Toulouse and Bristol they keep doggedly on …
as though this was a hopeless cause. Then it was said that
All that's flying now is Concord's engine".
How much better, and equally truthful it would have been to have said that it had already been flying for six months.
Later in the programme, there were some remarks by Miss Mary Goldring, aviation correspondent of the Economist, who said:
It's too small, it's too slow, and it's too short on range. The pay-load is just not adequate and there is no way of building in an engineering stretch. You're up on the limits of the materials and of the engines, and there's nothing more you can do to it".
The expert speaks, and the expert, when asked:
Would you cancel the Concord now?
replied:
This afternoon".

This reminds me of "off with his head"—good Alice in Wonderland stuff. But I recall that the Red Queen once told Alice:
Sometimes I have managed to believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast".
Does the Minister consider that this whole programme was fair comment, or does he regard it as I regard it—as "knocking" copy? Certainly, it provoked many letters of protest from people connected with the industry.
In the British Aircraft Corporation's house journal, Airframe, on 17th March, there was a letter written by three engineers engaged on Concord work at B.A.C., Filton, which reads:
As engineers engaged on the Concord project, we would like to make the strongest possible protest against the B.B.C. documentary on this subject, screened in its Panorama programme of last week. Constructive criticism of the project is always welcome, but destructive, biased and ill-informed criticism of the sort the B.B.C. saw fit to encourage is pernicious and damaging to one of Britain's major export industries".
If there were time, I should have liked to quote a lot more of this, but perhaps I can quote two other brief passages from B.A.C. spokesmen, who say:

… many have asked us why the B.B.C. takes such a delight in knocking Concorde and almost every other aspect of British aviation whenever it can.
In conclusion, it is said:
On many, though happily not all, British television programmes it is increasingly difficult both to inform and defend. This is not because our case is not sound, but because the format, direction and editorial pre-conclusions of the programmes are so weighted as to make it virtually impossible to develop logical and responsible discussion".
These are projects which need logical and responsible discussion—I hope that the Minister will agree with that—and I believe that we have a right to demand that the Minister should do what he can to ensure that such discussion takes place.
The Government have left the men in the aircraft industry precious few reasons to take real pride in their work. Why should any man of reputation, attainment or professional integrity in this or any other sphere of industry try to pull out the extra effort that makes for real success? His financial incentives are being progressively whittled away. His freedom to order his own life and the life of his family has been steadily suppressed by the all-pervading State. All that he has left is his sense of technical achievement; and even this is being taken away from him by programmes of the kind from which I have quoted which treat the men in this industry as if they were, to borrow a phrase from the Secretary of State for Defence, "overgrown and mentally retarded children".
Many people in the aircraft industry and outside it believe that the B.B.C.'s concept of a balanced programme is one in which truth and falsehood are given equal time. I wish to ask the Minister this: is he prepared to give the House an undertaking, not just because of the vast sums of public money involved, but because of the importance of ensuring that there is intelligent, balanced and reasonable discussion on matters of this kind, that he will do all in his power to put these matters right?

3.13 a.m.

Mr. Edwin Brooks: Few of the remaining Members in the House will dissent from the opening sentence of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) about the idiocy of the time at which it is necessary, apparently, to discuss these most important matters. Although I dissent from the conclusion


drawn by the hon. Gentleman, I feel that it is fitting and appropriate that we have had this opportunity to debate these extremely important and expensive ventures.
The hon. Member for Woking will recall that more than a year ago—on 9th February, 1966—he spoke about Concord. It is not without relevance to refer to his forecasts at that time about the cost of the Concord venture. He said:
But the rising costs must worry us. A figure of £400 million has recently been quoted as the cost of research and development to the point of production of Concord. Probably a more responsible estimate would be nearer to £350 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1966; Vol. 724, c. 490.]
Since those remarks were made—and, indeed, within three or four months—the cost of Concord, far from being "a more responsible" figure of £350 million, has soared to a figure of £500 million. It is difficult to anticipate the nature of the problems involved in detail. One must be careful in making forecasts even for the next 12 months, let alone the next three, four or possibly even as much as 10 years.

Mr. Onslow: Is there not a possibility that the hon. Member is not comparing like with like, and that in the much higher figure which we now have there may be a great deal of work that was not budgeted for in the original calculations?

Mr. Brooks: It is true that part of the explanation for the earlier escalation in costs from between £150 million and £170 million in November, 1962, to £275 million in May, 1964, involved the implications of the so-called "stretched" version of Concord. It is also true—and I accept what the hon. Member has just suggested—that in the more recent escalation to £500 million there is a figure of about £80 million now specified for post-certification development. But we must bear in mind that the post-certification development is still part of the research and development programme for the Concord, presumably to make it a viable commercial undertaking.
While the figure has risen to £500 million not only as a result of that £80 million, but also £50 million for additional contingency reserve, the £500 million is not the end of the story. Many of us perhaps suspected that when the figure of £500 million was given to us six or more

months ago. As was made clear in an Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), only a few days ago, it does not include the costs of intramural development—the costs of research and development borne by Government research establishments, such as Farnborough. I hope that before very long it will be possible for the House to know the implications of that additional cost, which I suspect to be of no small order.
We are, therefore, well above the £500 million already. We are considering the research and development for an aircraft on which it is now certain that not more than one-third of the research and development costs will be recouped as the result of a levy on sales. The figure of one-third has been currency for some time. The last report of the Committee of Public Accounts, published last September, referred to the matter as follows:
Your Committee were informed by the Treasury that it was not contemplated that the Concord project would be economic in the sense that the Governments would recover all their expenditure on development by levy on sales. It was considered that on an admittedly optimistic forecast of the number of Concord aircraft likely to be sold, the levy which production aircraft could bear would, on the basis of present estimates, recover no more than approximately one third of the research and development costs.
There is a good deal of ambiguity about the way in which the production costs of the Concord will be financed. There is evidence that perhaps we now have more information than we had a few months ago.
In a debate in the other place on 20th February, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said:
There is no delay in the Concord programme. I am informed that satisfactory interim arrangements have been made for production financing in the coming months, and that the need for large sums of money does not arise immediately."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th February, 1967; Vol. 280, c. 598.]
I would be interested to know what this so-called satisfactory interim arrangement amounts to. If it is true that it does not involve the large sums of money which are undoubtedly to be needed when the aircraft goes into production, what does the statement mean? Could we have information about the way in which the French Government, perhaps, now are well ahead in their proposals


for the production financing of the aircraft and to what extent is there perhaps a discrepancy between French and British Government views on this important matter?
A good deal has been said about the need for European aircraft programmes and production and as a committed European I see much merit in this technological co-operation which we can see as the launching pad for much greater and more ambitious projects. But it is important, when looking at these highly sophisticated and novel ventures such as the Concord, that we should draw the appropriate lessons from what has happened. Here I am a little dismayed to see the dilatory way in which both the Treasury and the former Ministry of Aviation have approached the problem of carrying out a thorough review of the experience so far gained in these bilateral arrangements.
The Public Accounts Committee, last year, referring to earlier Committees which had asked for similar reviews, commented:
Your Committee are of the opinion that the likely extension of the number of collaborative projects requires that a thorough study of the efficiency and economy of the sharing arrangements should be made as soon as possible.
Surely the time is long overdue when some such thorough investigation of the sharing arrangements should be carried out. Yet we find that in November the Treasury, in its minute upon this Report, stated—and here it shared its view with the then Ministry of Aviation—that they
appreciate the importance which attaches to a review of cost sharing arrangements for Concord but consider it premature to proceed to this review without further experience of the arrangements in operation.
I wonder what further experience of the arrangements in operation can possibly be required. This is not a new project. The arrangements upon which we are now building for Concord were set in motion at least as early as 1962. We have had well over four years—now getting on for five years—during which these sharing arrangements have surely been in a position at least to be assessed and conclusions drawn. It would appear that the aircraft will be flying and possibly even obsolescent before we decide to

carry out some such review, which is urgently needed at the present time.
There has been a good deal of criticism of the Concord project. Some of it, I believe, unlike the hon. Gentleman, to be undoubtedly justified. It seems to be an extraordinary attitude for a party which prides itself on commercial acumen in effect to be urging the Government to pour money endlessly and apparently without restraint into a project when the production companies, the aircraft manufacturers, have made it clear that they will not be in a position to put money into the production financing of the project.
We can argue that there will be technological side effects, some sort of fallout spread over many sectors, and many of the most important sectors, of the British economy as a result of a venture such a this. I hope that that will happen, and suspect that it is bound to happen, to an extent. At this point, we must draw a distinction with the United States and their evaluation of the space programme, because what we do not know, even in the broadest terms, is what that technological fall-out will comprise.
Before we take what may be irrevocable decisions to go ahead with the production financing of Concord, it is important that we should carry out an adequate series of field tests to see what are the tolerability problems of sonic boom over our cities. I tried to develop that point recently in an Adjournment debate, and I do no more than repeat it now. I find myself somewhat apprehensive having read a report in yesterday's issue of The Guardian which seemed to suggest that the Government have decided not to go ahead with such adequate field tests.
I have spent most of my speech so far in discussing the Concord venture. It gives me no solace or happiness to make these criticisms of a venture which is imaginative and full of potential to the whole of British aviation and beyond.
When I see some of the more unjustified criticisms of the venture, I begin to wonder to what extent American interests are busily deploying or encouraging arguments designed to "knock" the Concord and give the American supersonic transport an uninhibited run in the market which otherwise Concord might be able


to seize. I begin to wonder to what extent there are many hidden motives at work in the evaluation of Concord which is going on.
If it is true that there is this element in the criticism of Concord, it is all the more important for the British and French Governments to put their house in order and state clearly where they stand. Although there must be many reservations about decisions taken at this stage which might be irrevocable, especially when taken without the sort of knowledge that we should have had a long time ago, if they are going ahead with it, the time is coming when that fact should be made clear. There must be no more dithering.
As for the airbus project, it is a pity to polarise the 211 and the airbus in the way which has been done earlier. It is very difficult to talk remotely intelligently about these projects since, as the hon. Member for Woking has made clear, neither of them is anything more than a design project. It is premature to anticipate that the market for the airbus will be any particular number. I agree that it is important that we should begin to evaluate it, but estimates which we see vary enormously. The hon. Gentleman estimated that, by about the end of the 1970s, there might be a market for the European airbus of between 100 and 200—

Mr. Onslow: I was quoting from B.E.A. News. The figures which I gave were ones arrived at by the European airlines, meeting together to discuss the matter.

Mr. Brooks: I do not dispute them. That is an estimate based upon good sense. However, I have before me an article from the Financial Times of 9th February, by its extremely well-informed air correspondent, which discusses this aspect of markets and says that, by the early 1970s, world air traffic is expected to have at least doubled from the present level and is likely to multiply even faster thereafter. He goes on to say:
The Market"—
that is, the market for the airbus, the 250-seater project—
has been estimated at up to 1,000 aeroplanes throughout the world by about 1980.
I would not even know how to begin to estimate whether this sort of estimate is

any more accurate than the one we have had, but here is a discrepancy of about 10 to 1 in what are apparently reliable estimates. This does therefore suggest that it is premature to assume that the market for the European airbus will encounter quite so many of the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention.
We must accept that there will be difficulties. Those who have looked with an element of jaundice at the experience so far in collaborative ventures with the Continent must accept that the cost sharing will be more formidable when a third member is involved, let alone the old guard member of the Concord project, Britain and France.
I feel that in this whole problem of estimating the future demand for aircraft we may, in an odd way, not be imaginative enough, and I end with this thought. It has been said—and I must revert for a few moments to Concord—that this is a venture of great sophistication and great future potential in the whole field of technology. But is it possible to say that it is not imaginative enough, that the American supersonic transport with a speed of about Mach 3 may well involve far more advantage in terms of technological fall-out than the Concord with its speed of 2·2?
Is it possible to suggest that the sonic boom problems encountered with the supersonic airliners such as we are talking about with the Concord will be considerably diminished, if not removed, if we were considering the so-called hypersonic aircraft, which, I understand, will not involve anything like the same problems of sonic boom? There might be further problems for planes flying at this sort of altitude. We know that a solar burst could be a serious radiation hazard to Concord flying at 60,000 ft. and upwards, but this, I think, is the sort of problem which the accurate forecasting of conditions between the sun and the earth might remove in the foreseeable future.
It may be, therefore, that although Concord is a vision of great excitement, nevertheless perhaps we have gone only half way as far as we should go. Perhaps the time is coming when we should be looking again at the ideas of Barnes Wallis, one of the great technical geniuses not only of this century, but of all time, who, during recent years, has been putting


forward suggestions for hypersonic aircraft.

3.33 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: At half-past three I would not dream of seeking to detain the House for very long, but I would like for a few minutes to descend from the hypersonic, the supersonic, and even the subsonic to the rather more mundane problems of civil aviation today, and the effect of these problems on civil aircraft design.
I find from my researches that there seems to be a vicious circle in operation, and as always with such a circle the difficulty is to find the proper point at which to break the circumference to do something about it. I would like for a few moments to try to define the circle and make a suggestion.
British European Airways is a great international airline. Its international services are far more important to it than the domestic ones. To illustrate my point, the Corporation makes about £6½ million a year profit on its international services, but a loss of about £1½ million on domestic services. Therefore, B.E.A. will tend to choose to buy those aircraft which will best serve its international services and will not be so careful about their use on the domestic routes. No brand-new aeroplane has ever been used on the latter when first brought into service. The domestic passengers have to put up with second-best, with used aeroplanes no longer wanted on the international routes.
If circumstances in the business were normal, it would not be so bad, but they are not. B.E.A. has a monopoly on services between London and Manchester and London and Birmingham and a near-monopoly between London, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Belfast. When these trunk routes were recently opened to the independents, which operated the highly suitable BAC111, B.E.A. parried with Tridents and Comets which were unsuitable, because they were designed to fly in longer stages.
Absurdly, therefore, by far our biggest domestic airline flies planes on domestic routes which are either not the best—the jets which passengers prefer—or modern planes which are unsuitable and uneconomic. B.E.A. constantly objects to sug-

gestions by the other airlines for reductions of fares and special family fares and any other device for selling air seats, because it could not afford them on its domestic services. This semi-monopoly position means that domestic civil aviation suffers, is suffering and will continue to suffer.
The Minister should carefully consider possible alternative solutions. B.E.A. should be instructed, when considering what aeroplanes to buy, to pay more consideration to modern planes for the domestic routes and—most important—should no longer be permitted to keep its present near-monopoly position.

3.38 a.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. John Stonehouse): The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) is well-informed on these matters, but on this occasion he took a one-sided view. He said some unfortunate and extravagant things. It is absolutely untrue that the Government have given those in the industry few reasons to be proud of their work. He will surely agree that the industry's export performance last year—£230 million, £100 million up on the year before—is very creditable, and that the Government, although not responsible for this, have played some part in helping the industry to achieve it.
Many in the industry are proud of this achievement and glad that the Government and the industry have cooperated to secure it—

Mr. Onslow: Of course I agree that this is an achievement of which the industry can be proud, but I dispute the hon. Gentleman's attribution of credit for it to his Government. In so far as it is anyone's credit, it is due to decisions taken many years ago. The aircraft sold now have not been designed since 1964

Mr. Stonehouse: I do not claim any excessive credit for what this Administration have done in the last two and a half years, but it is the case that the finalisation of many of the orders that have been fulfilled during the last 12 months came about during the period for which we have been responsible. The industry has acknowledged the service that has been given and I go no further than that.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about people having freedom to determine


this and that and he referred to life being taken away by the all-pervading State. He knows as well as anybody else that without the all-pervading State providing the launching aid for British aircraft, few aircraft would have been produced. Consider the cost involved. The VC10 and Super VC10, £10·25 million; the BAC111, £9·75 million; the Trident I and IE, £7·25 million; and the Islander and Jet Stream, to name but a few. All of these aircraft had money provided by the taxpayer through the all-pervading State so that they could be got off the ground.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: Speaking as one who is closely concerned with this matter, is not the hon. Gentleman aware that while the firms concerned, including my own, are grateful for the provision of this launching capital, the taxpayer and the Government are getting a fine investment, and on very tough terms?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am not disputing that. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I am anxious that we have a viable British aircraft industry.
I am satisfied that on the aircraft I have named and on the others I could mention, this country will, in the long run, get a viable return in terms of export performance and import saving. Nevertheless, it is hardly fair of the hon. Member for Woking, who takes such an interest in the aircraft industry, to cast aspersions on the all-pervading State when, without the assistance of the State, many of these aircraft would have had no possible chance of being designed.
The case is even clearer when it comes to the BAC211, because the British Aircraft Corporation is asking the Government to put up almost all the cost of developing this aeroplane. The fact is that it is now impossible for private industry and private finance to raise the money required to develop these sophisticated aircraft. There have been some exceptions, like the HS125, that have been extremely successful, but, excepting those, the aircraft now being developed and those to be developed in future require the taxpayers' money to get them off the ground.
We are anxious to provide that money for projects that can be viable in the long run, that can produce a return for

our economy and can keep our skilled men in useful employment. But it would be wrong and wasteful for any Minister to recommend that the House should vote the taxpayers' money on building aircraft which will not produce such a return. Certainly, the Ministry of Technology would not sponsor, with our Ministerial colleagues, any project unless we thought that such a return was involved.
I was asked whether we would sponsor the BAC211. The case for this aircraft, as put forward by B.E.A., is not one which the Government can accept without giving the matter very careful examination. B.E.A. needs interim aircraft. We want to help the Corporation to meet that need, but in its calculations of the economic advantages of the BAC211, B.E.A. does not—and perhaps it is not its immediate job to do this—take into account the enormous research and development costs involved in the development of this new aeroplane.
They would amount to about £50 million for the airframe and about £50 million for the RB211 engine, about £100 million in total. Without successful export prospects, it would be foolhardy of the Government to endorse a project of this character, meeting simply the needs of B.E.A. We cannot afford to make the mistake again of building aircraft in British aircraft factories solely for British airlines, nor can we expect to recover research and development expenditure which is based on developing any one of these aircraft for a single airline demand.
Bearing in mind that the United States has a lead on us in this because of its vast domestic market with home airlines demanding many aircraft of these types, and bearing in mind the vast resources of their aircraft producing firms, we cannot expect to be able to succeed in building these new types of aircraft and exporting them, unless we have a fair idea of the export potential they could enjoy. That is why, in evaluating the aircraft proposals now before them, the Government are paying careful attention to the aircraft commitments of other airlines in Europe.
The Boeing 727 has very similar characteristics to the BAC211 and is already flying. The economics of the 727 compare favourably with the 211, which


is no more than a design. So the 727 has a very good start. The 727–200 series is about the same size as the BAC211, so what the hon. Member for Woking was saying, that the BAC211 fills a gap, is not correct. The gap has already been filled. Many European airlines are to fly the Boeing 727, if they are not flying it already. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to persuade them to switch from the Boeing to which they have already committed themselves, to yet another British aircraft.

Mr. Onslow: By the same token, many American lines are flying the BAC111 and it should not be difficult to persuade them to switch.

Mr. Stonehouse: That is another story. The BAC111 has been a success story in the United States and I was glad, when I was there about 18 months ago, to be flying in a 111 in service with an American airline. Our study of the export potential of the BAC211 does not yet give us any great cause for enthusiasm. I go no further than that. Where there is £100 million of the taxpayers' money to be invested, I think that the House would agree that we have to be very cautious.

Mr. Robert Carr: Many of the yardsticks or tests which the hon. Gentleman enunciated would be common ground to Members on both sides, but he disturbed me when he referred to B.E.A.'s need for an interim aircraft. It is very dangerous to look at this as an interim or stopgap, because that is not my understanding of what B.E.A. is looking for at all.

Mr. Stonehouse: I was going on to explain why we think the airbus is a project which should be seriously considered.
B.E.A. will need aircraft in the 170-seat range. It will need aircraft of the airbus type from 1973 and 1974 onwards. Its total demand for the airbus type will depend on the type of aircraft it has of the smaller size, but the Corporation acknowledges—and I think that the hon. Gentleman also acknowledged—that it will need an airbus type of plane in the middle of the 'seventies.
The three European countries—France, Germany and ourselves—have been considering for the past two years the Euro-

pean airbus project. If, in fact, we can get the right conditions to start this project study—and that still has to be determined; we cannot determine it before the end of the month, when I will be meeting the German and French Ministers concerned—it is the sort of project which, for instance, the Plowden Committee advised us to undertake, and which it is generally agreed on both sides of the House promises the best opportunity for the British aircraft industry to build aircraft which can produce a viable return to our economy; because this aircraft would start off on the firm basis of a commitment on the part not only of B.E.A., but of other European airlines.
In the talks I had last month in Bonn with the Ministers concerned, we have already said that there should be a commitment on the part of the three national airlines—Lufthansa, Air France and B.E.A. I believe that there is a growing view in Germany as well as in France that if the German industry, like the French and British industries, is participating in building this aircraft, the airline must have some loyalty to it. It is on that understanding that we are approaching these airbus discussions.
If we can establish this European airline commitment—it could be up to 100 aircraft—this would be the best start that any aircraft project in which Britain has participated has ever had. It would mean a basis for a success in exports of perhaps up to 300, or even more, airbus planes. The total market for this type is between 800 and 1,000 and about half of it is in the United States. We might be able to sell some of the airbus sort of plane in the United States to airlines which have a short haul, or shorter haul, and a smaller size requirement, but we would aim to sell European airbus aircraft to the airlines in Europe, and perhaps outside Europe, in quantities which would make this a viable project.
This is our hope. It is too soon for us to give a proper progress report to the House, but we are approaching this project in a realistic mood. We are not emotional about it. We are approaching it with a view to establishing a project which can produce a return to the United Kingdom economy.
I want to say a word about Rolls-Royce. The Rolls-Royce Company is


one of the great success stories in Great Britain. It is a company which has been developing some very successful engines, and the reason why it has developed them is that there have been British aircraft in which to put them. If we did not have a share in the development of airframes there would be a danger that in years to come Rolls-Royce might not have the opportunity of putting the engines it is developing into the aircraft.
Discussions are going on with a view to Rolls-Royce participating in the Lockheed airbus. We hope that they will be successful, but they are more likely to be successful if Rolls-Royce has a project in Europe in which it is also participating. During the talks I had last month, I got the French and German Ministers to agree that if the Rolls-Royce engine were chosen—and we have yet to come to an agreement on that important decision—the French and the Germans would share 12½ per cent. each in the research and development of the RB207, the large engine which Rolls-Royce intends to develop.
This is a very good direction to move in. We have Rolls-Royce, a wonderful firm developing engines that everybody agrees are just as good, if not better, than can be produced in the United States, and the French and Germans now coming in to share the research and development costs.
The Rolls-Royce engine, we believe, must be very closely considered for the European airbus if it is to go ahead, and for these reasons I believe that the airbus project is one that we must look at very seriously indeed.
Working back from the provision of a European airbus for B.E.A., we then have the very real problem of what I would call, in shorthand, the interim aircraft need. It is one that must be filled, and it must be filled with an aircraft that can meet B.E.A.'s requirements. The major responsibility for this is with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, but we are very anxious, in the Ministry of Technology, to provide all the assistance we can in helping B.E.A. to meet this requirement.
There are five broad ways in which it can be filled. One would be the BAC211 with the Rolls-Royce RB211 as the power

unit. This, I think, must be rejected on the ground of the RB211 and the RB207, which is the bigger thrust engine, being beyond the capacity of Rolls-Royce at one and the same time.
The BAC211 with the Spey is a possibility, but there are some disadvantages to this in view of the fact that the export potential, bearing in mind all the research and development costs, would not be very great.
The Trident IIIB, the VCIO and the Boeing 727 are the other three, and all these must be carefully evaluated before any decision can be reached. The Government must take a broader view of the problem than B.E.A. can be expected to take. When B.E.A. makes its proposal for the BAC211 it is, of course, considering it from a narrow point of view. It is even considering a quoted price to the Corporation that cannot possibly include the full research and development costs, amortised over the aircraft it intends to buy. If the research and development costs were fairly amortised over the few aircraft B.E.A. intends to buy, it would make the aircraft uneconomic from its point of view. It is this broad view of the total cost to the economy which the Government must bear in mind.
I come to the Concord—a very big question indeed—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think me discourteous, but this is the fifth of 15 debates we are having tonight. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can be reasonably brief.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am always ready to be reasonable, Mr. Speaker, but some very serious questions have been raised. There will not be an opportunity before we rise for the Recess for these matters to be raised again in the House, and they are matters of public controversy outside, in the Press and elsewhere. Despite the lateness of the hour, I believe that it is vitally important that some points should be recorded in the House. I hope that I do not transgress too far in time—

Mr. Speaker: I have no power to prevent the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Stonehouse: The Concord is costing £500 million in research and development, and it is quite right and proper for hon. Members to raise questions about


this expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) asked a number of questions about production financing. We have already undertaken to provide £500,000 for advance materials and for machine tools and for other requirements to B.A.C., and there is no hold-up to the development of concord.
The French systems are not quite the same as ours and I do not think that any comparison can be made between what we are doing in Britain and what France is doing in regard to production financing. We are fully in accord with the French. We are in close liaison with them through the Concord Directing Committee, of which the Ministry of Technology's Controller of Aircraft is the chairman.
My hon. Friend raised the question of sonic bang tests. I repeat what I said to him in an Adjournment debate. These proposals are being considered by the Ministers concerned.
The Concord project raises a great deal of emotion on both sides, both for and against. The hon. Member for Woking referred to the B.B.C's "Panorama" programme. I am sure that he would not expect me to comment in detail on that programme. Any such programme is the responsibility of the B.B.C., but five hours ago I went on a programme for I.T.V. during which I was asked a number of questions about Concord. I hope that I answered them in a way which would satisfy the hon. Member. I said that Concord could produce a return for the economy of Britain if the costs are controlled. This is a very important factor. We cannot allow anyone to get away with the idea that there is a blank cheque. We have to have efficiency and rigorous control not only of development costs, but also of production costs. Bearing in mind that all the money is provided by the taxpayer, it is the duty of the Government to see that there is firm control.
The Concord project will be considerably ahead of the United States. My hon. Friend the Member for Bebington asked whether it would not be better to go for a Mach 3 aircraft, like the Americans. This, he said, could have more advantage, particularly in terms of sonic bang. I do not agree. The disadvantage of the

American aircraft is that as it involves complicated materials it will cost a lot more and take a lot more time. As a result, Concord will be well ahead of the Americans and this will give us, with the French, an opportunity to scoop the market in advance of the Americans.

Mr. Brooks: Mr. Brooks rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions prolong speeches. There are still 13 or 14 subjects ahead of us.

Mr. Stonehouse: We are anxious that our co-operation with the French in the control of Concord should be efficient and effective and that we can produce on time—as I believe we shall—an aircraft that can pave the way for successful production aircraft. There are many questions which are still to be resolved, as the House would expect in an advanced project of this kind, but I can assure the House that the Ministry of Technology is keeping a very close eye on the development of Concord and providing every possible support and encouragement to it.

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE (GROWTH)

4.4 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: I begin by expressing thanks to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for coming to the House in the dead of night. Whether or not in this debate we agree with the way in which the economy is going, I nevertheless am well aware that he, like most Ministers, has probably too much to do. I know that he has gone to some trouble to prepare for this debate and I am grateful to him.
In one sense, it is fair to say that there is an aspect of this complicated subject, public expenditure, which is non-party. It is very easy to trace that it has been rising steadily under all parties for a very long time. Earlier today I made a note of a number of figures. It is interesting to reflect that in 1910–11 it was only £172 million, in 1930–31, it was £881 million, in 1947–48, just after the war, it was £3,376 million, and in the middle 'fifties £5,000 million. Last year, of course, it has risen to the massive figure of £9,000 million.
It is true that for a long time no party has succeeded in keeping public expenditure within, one might say, reasonable


bounds. In that sense, it is a problem of both sides of the House. But I think it fair to strike a certain balance between the way the Conservative Government attempted to deal with the problem and the attitude of the present Government.
It is true that under the Conservatives public expenditure rose during 13 years and rose particularly steeply during their last two years. I dare say that there are among my hon. Friends those who felt that this later rise was more than should have been allowed. At the same time, this rise was accompanied by a growth rate of over 3 per cent. and confidence of industry in the private sector was maintained. Also at the same time, private investment was rising by about 4 per cent.
What is the attitude of the present Government towards public expenditure? I would like to make two quotations which seem to make their attitude perfectly clear. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister on 22nd November whether, as laid down in the National Plan, public expenditure was to continue until 1970 at the rate of 41 per cent. per year. The reply was:
In terms of 1964 prices, that is our general policy. The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait until he sees the Estimates before he can appreciate how far it is possible in any year to hold to that figure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 1145.]
There was, of course, this reservation, but, nevertheless, the intention was clear and it was made clearer the next day by the present Leader of the House, in a speech to the Fabian Society, when he said:
Despite the critical nature of the economic situation we inherited, we accordingly decided that in the future the public sector must take an increasing share of the national income.
We decided, for example, that public expenditure in real terms should rise by 4¼ per cent. a year over the period 1964–70—a rate of growth of a good bit higher than the expected rise in the gross domestic product. This determination to make sure that total public expenditure rose faster than the G.D.P. was a decision to plan—to do what was necessary to achieve a particular and very important social and economic objective, that of redressing the balance between public expenditure and private expenditure.
I will examine the present position in the light of these two statements of policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has sought to maintain so far the 4¼ per cent. growth in public expenditure, but the

growth rate, as everyone realises is under 1 per cent.
My last quotation is from the Economist of 19th November, 1966, roughly the same time. The paper was prognosticating about likely public expenditure in 1967–68 and it said:
The first point to make is that 1967–68 is a year when real current government expenditure should not be allowed to rise by 3 or 4 per cent., or by anything like it. The squeeze that was scheduled for next year was originally advertised as one in which government expenditure would take its fair cut. It is now becoming more and more apparent that the whole weight of the squeeze is going to fall on productive private investment instead.
We are talking about a situation of what is, in effect, economic stagnation. I am also concerned about what I might describe as the unpleasant economic changes which are taking place at the bottom of the economic pond. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider these figures. During the calendar year 1966–67 public authority expenditure rose by 3 per cent. Public investment rose, not by the 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. which the Economist thought was far too much, but by 8 per cent. Meantime, private investment was falling, according to the Board of Trade survey, by 10 per cent.; that is, leaving out private investment in housing, which was only 5½ per cent. In manufacturing industry it fell by as much as 10 per cent.
There was, at the same time, a welcome rise in exports of 3¾ per cent. There is in this an element of profit for industry. However, private consumption, which is where the main profit lies, did not change at all during this period. Private investment and private consumption, taken together, fell by 3 per cent. By comparison, over the last decade the average rise in private consumption has been 2¾ per cent. and of private investment 4 per cent. The figures which must be taken together are thus 4 per cent. over the last decade as against a fall now of 10 per cent. in private investment and an absolute stagnation of private consumption now, as against an average rise over the decade of 2¾ per cent., and that is where the profit should be coming from.
These figures represent a steep decline in private business activity since this Government have been in office. I suggest that the balance has not been


redressed. It is, on the other hand, plummeting downwards—and, in my view, the wrong way at that.
Where is all this leading? We are all too familiar by this time with the credit cycle and the endless argument as to how to get rid of it or cope with it. It was the Labour Party, when in opposition, which first coined the phrase "stop-go economics". This is something of which we are only too painfully familiar. I believe that, as a result of the position as I have sought to describe it, on top of this continuing cycle there is now a dangerous trend which leads to two results: first, to slower growth—I have mentioned already the present growth figure—and, secondly, to lower profitability.
In the latter connection, the gross trading profits of companies are at the moment the lowest they have been for 10 years—12 per cent. of net income before tax. That is the figure from the National Institute Economic Review. In addition, net income is falling steadily in relation to net assets. It is 13 per cent. today as against 16 per cent. three years ago.
Thus, as the new taxes—the Corporation Tax and the S.E.T.—begin to take their effect in the private sector, as the credit squeeze steadily increases in effect, as margins are narrowed perilously as a result of all these things, so the spare resources in men and machines are being shed in order to cope with these ever decreasing margins. Although they should be finding their way, if the objective of the strategy as I have understood it were being achieved, into other sectors of industry which were growing, they are instead being sucked into the maw of the public sector all the time as a result of this trend.
There are two other ways in which the steady increase in the public sector can and should be measured. The first is in the growth of the Civil Service—a steady 3½ per cent. a year. The Financial Secretary's latest memorandum shows that all all-time peak in the administrative Civil Service was reached on 1st April last, an increase of no fewer than 24,000 civil servants since last year. The second means of measuring the increase is the oblique method of physical take-

over of resources which is being practised assiduously by the Government.
I do not want to weary the House, but it is right that the various headings should be mentioned. First, there are the 14 companies to be nationalised under the Iron and Steel Bill. These have ramifications far beyond the steel industry, In the aircraft industry, in order to achieve a merger which may or may not be a good idea in itself, the Government claim that they must have a substantial minority holding. In transport, the Government's 1964 election manifesto contained the commitment to expand the nationalised sector, and already 20 private companies, including the Tartan Arrow service, have disappeared into the Transport Holding Company. The Minister of Transport has said that she looks forward to further take-overs "on an every widening scale".
The ports are to be taken over. This was promised last summer by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Foreign Secretary, and repeated by the Minister of Transport. Water supply undertakings are to have "further extensions of public ownership"; that was in the 1966 election manifesto. Building land, under the terms of the Land Commission Act, is to be controlled, and both the Gas and the National Coal Boards are already empowered to go into the search for North Sea gas. The Industrial Reorganisation Corporation has been voted £150 million of public money to form new companies and to take up shareholdings, without limit of time. It is already in Rootes Motors and is said to be looking at the telecommunications industry as well.
Under the broad heading of "Science-Based Industries", the Government's 1964 election manifesto stated that Government establishments are entitled to go beyond research and development and to establish new industries, and the 1965 Science and Technology Act gave wide powers over this field. The Atomic Energy Authority is an example. It has done magnificent work, and is staffed by the most capable scientists, but it is primarily a research organisation. If you are seeking to diversify in industry, you do not go to the marketing division for ideas; nor to the research division, where otherwise you are liable to let yourself in for some expensive failures.
Recently, I understand, the A.E.A. discovered a means of slowing down an aircraft which has over-run the runway by digging holes and filling them with pebbles. Very ingenious, but is it really what one would expect a Ph.D. to be up to?
We are told that the nationalised industries are to diversify their activities. Already, the National Coal Board has bought its way into brickmaking and chemical companies, solid fuel and heating equipment. Under the regional development programme, new public enterprises are to be installed "wherever they prove necessary."
Finally, we have what I call the subsidised industries, those which, for one reason or another, have got into trouble and are to be pulled out by the Government. There is the Shipbuilding Industry Board, which has power to hold shares. And £200 million of public money has been invested in Fairfields, earning 3 per cent. on net assets. But a business undertaking, such as I.C.I., would not look at anything like that under 15 per cent. There is also the matter of Beagle Aircraft. All these activities increase the Government's financial liability and increase the extent of Government control over British industry. It is really as though wherever a vacuum occurs in the economy it is automatically filled by Government in some form or another, using public money.
One could ask, "Does it all matter?" Am I simply boring the House with a lot of ideological nonsense? It is perfectly legitimate for hon. Members opposite to consider whether this is so, and I concede straight away that there are people who believe that it probably is. I will state three reasons why I do not believe this to be ideological nonsense.
The first is that profit is the only measurement of efficiency in business, and this applies to the public and private sectors. The sector which measures performance and indeed its very existence in this way is steadily diminishing, and the sector which is growing like some avaricious monster does not. The Minister of Technology today had the temerity to accuse British industry of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds every year. If one makes that simple comparison of method, I do not see how it lies in his mouth or

in the mouth of anybody else in the Government to say such a thing.
There is a tendency all the time—and I have mentioned the case of the aircraft industry—for the Government or the Treasury to feel—I do not know from where the feeling stems—that if they invest heavily in a concern they must follow it up with some degree of control; in order to get nearer to what is going on they put two or three people on the board. This is the sort of thing which is, I imagine, envisaged in the aircraft merger which will possibly occur. As soon as a major industrial concern gets Government nominees on the board, automatically it begins to dawn, perhaps unconciously, in their minds that tucked away somewhere there is £200 million to bail them out if they get into trouble.
Suppose that they get into trouble. The tendency will be not to take the drastic decisions which they would take if they were depending solely on what had to be achieved in terms of profit, but to turn to the Government nominees and say, "We have explained the position to you. You understand the difficulties. If we cannot get a subsidy or help from somewhere, we shall have to close this or that subsidiary and there will be men out of work". They will hope to get away with it in this natural and understandable way.
The second reason is the proposition about whether management generally is more efficient if exercised by the Government or more wasteful. The lesson undoubtedly, so far as my studies have gone, is that it is incomparably more wasteful if exercised by the Government in the industries in which I have been involved. The Treasury is at the heart of so much of this matter. Equally I am sure that the Financial Secretary would agree that quite often this critically important but extremely powerful Department of State is the butt of unfair criticism because of the responsibilities which it cannot possibly avoid.
But within the general context of management of affairs by the Government, I would put to the Financial Secretary three questions about which I have often wondered. What exactly is the Treasury? First, is it an administrative unit? It administers the Civil Service, but it seems to me that it is not entirely this. Secondly, is it a production


machine? I do not think that this is true, either, although it involves itself in research, development and production decisions at many points in the economy. Thirdly, is it a bank? Again, no, but it creates money on a very large scale.
It is a sort of holding company, and I am afraid, in present circumstances, an extraordinarily inefficient one. I am not sure that this should be its function, and I would prefer to see it represent very much more closely the banking function; staffed with people who understand the banking for profit and who are fit to judge risk and who would look at all expenditure in this light. The most difficult expenditure to justify would be that which could not show a profit for the nation, and there would be a good deal of that for the best possible reasons.
To finish with the nationalised industries, I believe that it will be vital, if public expenditure is to be held, to stick to the financial standards laid down in the 1961 White Paper. I wonder very much whether the Government are not beginning to slide away from this concept. It is difficult enough to get efficiency in private industry, but how does one get it when there is no standard of return on money invested; when it is virtually impossible for anybody to get the sack; and when there is a system of automatic promotion?
The 4¼ per cent. rise in public expenditure must result in ever heavier taxes, it seems to me that even if it does not happen this year this trend will return next year to blight us. Incentives are already pathetically small in the private sector, because of the level of taxes required to finance the public sector. The maximum rate of 90 per cent. taxation is imposed at an income of £18,000 per annum in this country, compared with 70 per cent. at £78,000 in the United States. It is hard to see how we can compete on that basis.
The managing director of a firm with a turnover of £40 million a year, the sort of firm doing most of our exporting, who earns, say, £15,000 a year, must earn £2,000 more next year to get the miserable £200 he needs to maintain his present position with the 3 per cent. rate of inflation taking place today.
At the other end of the scale, overtime is taxed at 32 per cent. compared with

23 per cent. five years ago. What is the purpose of trying? Many people in the board room and on the shop floor ask themselves that question today.
The public sector is steadily advancing, and reward for effort is steadily diminishing. Those two facts are closely related. Until that trend is set in direct reverse there will be no real recovery in this country. We have all the resources we need to stage a resurgence which could stir the world. We shall do it one day, but not until we are rid of the present dim and woolly tyranny.

Mr. David Howell: Mr. David Howell (Guildford) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. Member wish to speak on the same topic?

Mr. Howell: Briefly, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair should have known. It is an advantage if the Chair knows, because there is a planned order of debate on the Bill.

4.28 a.m.

Mr. David Howell: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I informed the Chair earlier in the day that I wished to speak. I shall be very brief.
I wish merely to expand on one or two of the very interesting points which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings). It seemed to me that in his speech he touched on a rather broader theme, which will come up in debates on the Budget during the next few weeks and which will be worth bearing in mind before we plunge into those weeks of financial discussion.
My hon. Friend's speech indicates that not merely for the past two years, but for 15 and possibly 20 years, we have faced a constant tendency for our system of administration, which is over-centralised and in many aspects highly inefficient, to grow in ways which do not reflect a deliberate policy by the Government of the day. If this or any Government are serious in their efforts to control the inexorable growth of public expenditure we shall have to see them tackling the system, administration and structure of government far more vigorously and radically than the present Government have done so far.
I sympathise, as I think my hon. Friend does, with the Treasury's position at the


centre of the machine. Year after year the Treasury sets out with very vigorous intentions to try to prune and control public spending and seek to impose limited budgets on the Departments. Year after year the Departments come back with unaswerable arguments that they must have a higher budget, that costs have risen and that, for policies to be implemented, more money must be obtained. The show must go on!
The process has already started this year with a considerable rise in Government spending for the corning year. It is interesting to note how much that spending seems to be in areas where the Government do not seem to have full control—particularly in non-defence areas—and where there will be a 4 per cent. rise in real terms in spending compared with a 2½ per cent. average over the last 15 years or more.
This is a considerable increase in precisely the areas where increased spending is generated not by decisions of policy at all, but by a plethora of memoranda and small pleas for money for this and that. This gradually forces upon the Government increased expenditure without any policy decision at all.
The effect of this immediate prospect of increased expenditure this year has been to remove the elbow room that the Treasury and the Chancellor may have had for reflation, We shall get reflation, but in a way that will suck resources into precisely the wrong areas, those which have the least effect on exports and increased national efficiency. We shall see increases in resources concentrated almost entirely on increased Government expenditure.
We are, in effect, moving towards a Government expenditure-led reflation which, in terms of national efficiency and exports, must be the wrong way forward out of our present rather unpleasant situation During the months ahead, there is no immediate clash between the growth of public spending and the needs of the economy, because we have considerable slack in the economy.

Mr. Will Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman represents Guildford. Does he ever ask Ministers in charge of spending Departments to improve the amenities of life for his

constituents? Does he, for example, ever ask the Minister of Health for better hospital facilities for Guildford or the Secretary of State for Education and Science for increased grants for better schools in Guildford? Does he, in short, ask the Government to spend more for better amenities for his constituents, then squeal about the total? He wants individual items to be higher and the total to be less.

Mr. Howell: If the hon. Gentleman will listen he will understand that what he is saying reflects a complete misunderstanding of my proposition about the development and control of public spending. I raise questions of decisions on public spending—that is necessary. But to suggest that I am, as it were, singing the familiar and, I agree, rather pointless chorus of saying, "Let us spend more on everything in detail and reduce the total overall" does not do justice to my argument.
I am talking in the short term and not about the overall growth of public spending. I simply say that, in the immediate future, there will obviously be, as the National Institute of Economic and Social Research agrees, a clash between the growth of public spending, particularly in areas where there does not seem efficient management control, and the needs of private sector investment, consumer spending and the desire of people in our constituencies for a better life in all forms, both in the public service and private spending. To object to that proposition seems unrealistic and to be throwing an antique argument into an area where new forms of control and new ideas are needed.
As we face this situation of a steady growth in public spending, is there anything which politicians can do? Are we left with a world in which the public sector goes on growing? There are very sensible steps which can be taken—not ideological or doctrinal ones—to improve the management performance of the public sector, the way in which public money is spent, and the way in which services and facilities are provided with taxpayers' money.
If I may put three of them before the Fninancial Secretary, the first, which may sound a little abstract, is that the Government and public officials at all levels must


throw off the habit of thinking that everything can be done best by public authorities, and that everything which the public authorities touch must be run and controlled by them. That is a habit of mind which is very extensive. It dominates the public sector, and it must militate against efficient organisation.
No human organisation can be run with excessive central organisation, and that applies as much to government as to anything else. As long as the Government look benignly on the continuing appropriation by the public sector of functions which could be done by private individuals in the private sector, and so long as we see this growth of public intrusion into areas where individuals of the private sector could do as well, so long is the bill which we are discussing likely to grow.
What is needed in our system of government is an incentive operating on public officials the other way. What we need to see is public officials acting in a much more creative way at every level in the government structure—local, regional and central—to combine public initiative with private enterprise in new forms. There are all kinds of possibilities for opening out better opportunities in local authorities, at central Government level and in the national economy generally which arguments divided strictly between the public and the private sector automatically preclude.
That is one of the essential principles if we are to reform the management of government and enable it to control its own growth. It needs applying in the nationalised industries, where participation by private enterprise is long overdue. Many good ideas are available for bringing private initiative back into harmony with public enterprise.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: If it is argued that there is room in the public sector of, say, local government for certain aspects of private management and investment and the basic profit motive which predominates in the private sector, the counter to that arugment is that, in the private sector, there is room for the use of techniques which permeate the public sector, and that profit alone should not be the basic motivation?

Mr. Howell: It is not quite as simple as that. In some areas, decisions must be taken on the basis of the profit motive. My argument is that those areas could be larger than they are at present. There are many areas where we are not bringing to bear the possible incentive effect which we could if the profit motive were more widely used and encouraged. Similarly, I accept that, over large areas of the public sector, public initiatives operate and public decisions are taken which have a direct effect on private enterprise as well.
Earlier this evening, we discussed the relationship between public sector decisions on civil and military aircraft development and the outcome in the private sector where those aircraft are developed. There are all kinds of possibilities here of a different relationship, but the main thing is to ensure that the relationship is such that we make the best of both the profit motive, the private enterprise contribution, and the public sector initiative, and we do not say that we have to have one or the other to meet some out-dated doctrine.
We are seeing this development in many local authorities which are pursuing methods of co-operation with private enterprise. I think that we ought to encourage it more in the universities, where there are great opportunities for staffs in the technological universities to involve themselves in new commercial enterprises and ensure that innovation is encouraged and science-based small firms spring up in relation to universities. This is a good example of public money being invested in knowledge and people in universities, and they, in turn, using that knowledge to stimulate private enterprise and, therefore, benefiting the community by a mixture of private and public enterprise.
The whole principle which is at the heart of the question of the control of public expenditure is one which can be applied almost across the entire spectrum of our public affairs. There was mention of it the other day during the debate on the Plowden Report in the discussion on nursery schools, where, I think, there are great possibilities for ensuring that full-scale nursery school provision comes forward for all as a result of the mixture


of public money and private contributions, otherwise we will not have full-scale nursery education at all. That has been the position in the past.
That really seems to be the central long-term point which arises from any discussion of the growth of public expenditure. We are in a situation in which we have this inexorable growth of expenditure, and the Treasury is not able to control it. We are in a situation in which there is an almost uncanny proliferation of departments of public bodies, often overlapping ones that exist, with blurred responsibilities. It is sad to say that the Government have been particularly profuse in this, and have a particularly high rate of productivity in the production of new Ministries and Departments.
We are in a situation in which, unless we are prepared to look into the system of government and the structure of government, we will have to live with a constantly growing public sector, one which will be growing not for reasons of policy, not even because the Government may wish the public sector to grow, but simply because it is developing of its own accord in a way which is out of control and which is immeasurable in terms of management efficiency, and which, in the end, will ensure that the efficiency of the nation is held back, and so is the rate of growth.

4.43 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) for the courteous opening to his speech, and I hope that he will acquit me of discourtesy if I seek to reply to the debate briefly. I do so partly because the debate has ranged widely on what is a very wide topic, but also because, as has been said, we will shortly have an opportunity, in our Budget debates, to discuss these matters much more fully, and because we are all conscious that other debates which are due to take place on the Consolidated Fund Bill are liable to be squeezed out for want of time.
The hon. Gentleman said that in a sense this was a non-partisan matter, but having paid lip-service, as it were, to recognising that public expenditure was growing fast, and the Civil Service was growing steadily during the closing years of the Conserva-

tive Administration, he then forgot that and sought to make a party argument.
I thought that the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell) approached the matter rather more dispassionately, as one would expect after reading his interesting article on this topic in The Times a few days ago. I agree with him that what is needed is a Government who are prepared to look at the structure of local and central Government. The present Leader of the House, when Minister of Housing and Local Government, grasped the nettle which eluded many of his predecessors in setting up the Royal Commission on Local Government. The resulting general consensus is that we should move towards a reduction in the number of local government units; the argument is about how many and what size they should be. Surely this is the sort of change which will bring improvements. This Administration also set up the Fulton Royal Commission on the structure and organisation of the central Civil Service.
In his article, the hon. Member for Guildford put his finger on the key question of the relationship between this House and the Executive. Much of the structure of Government and Civil Service is determined by the House's requirement of detailed accountability. If we want methods of Government which will devolve responsibility and managerial power, the House must be prepared to surrender some of this type of control and seek a new form—perhaps arising out of our experiment with Select Committees, which will be aimed to look precisely at administration and structure.
I agree, also, with the hon. Gentleman's article that reform of Government structure must go hand in hand with Parliamentary reform. We are considering these longer-term matters. In the shorter term—this is primarily the Treasury's responsibility—we are trying to improve the machinery for the control of public expenditure, a notoriously difficult problem for this and other countries. We are continuing to seek better control. Our objective over public expenditure—including local and central Government current and capital expenditure, the investment of nationalised industries and other public corporations—is to give the highest priority to strengthening the


balance of payments and encouraging economic growth.
At times of balance of payments pressures, these two objectives cannot be achieved simultaneously. We have sought, also, to provide what we regard as the most important social and economic priorities—to establish a sound relationship between the growth of public expenditure and the development of the national economy. That is why we set a 4¼ per cent. annual growth target in the National Plan, compared with a target under the previous Government's White Paper projecting public expenditure of 4·1 per cent.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire devoted part of his speech to contrasting the position of the growth in public expenditure with the present decline in private investment and sought—I believe too facilely, as others have done—to try to attribute the decline in private investment to the growth in the public sector.
The decline in private investment at the moment is primarily a consequence of the economic measures that have had to be taken to rectify our balance of payments problem. A most depressing picture would follow if, as a result of that, the Government decided at such a moment to slash public expenditure and public investment to mitigate that decline; and I do not quite see how such a step would stimulate optimism with a resultant growth in the private sector.
Although public fixed investment is rising, the estimated prospective increase, at constant prices, of 8½ per cent. announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day is no greater than the estimated increase between 1965–66 and 1966–67 and, with the forecast decrease in private sector investment, the increase in public sector investment should not create excessive demand and is not incompatible with an early recovery of private sector investment.
In short, the Government's objective is to stimulate productive investment and to foster economic growth. In their judgment of the optimum size of the public investment programmes, this must and does take into account all the needs

of the economy as a whole and the extent to which investment in the private sector is likely to meet this.

Mr. Hastings: I do not disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I tried to show that taxes and the squeeze are responsible for the effects which he has mentioned. I pointed out that what appears to be happening is that the resources squeezed out of the private sector, as a result of these measures and the conditions thereby created, instead of finding their way into the growth industries, seem to be getting mopped up by the public sector because of the rate of growth of that sector.

Mr. MacDermot: A lot of the public sector investment is in quite essential investment. This must be so if we are to get a future expansion of the economy, including the private sector, to meet the country's needs, as the nationalised industries do for power, transport and communications. The hon. Gentleman may dislike our plans for the exploitation of North Sea gas in that this has been done by the public and not the private sector. If there is an objection on that score, then it is an objection on ideological grounds; but the hon. Gentleman must agree that it is essential that we should not allow present temporary difficulties to hold back an essential piece of investment at this time for the future prosperity of our economy.
At the same time as there is this public sector industrial investment, there is also a widespread demand for an expansion of the housing programme, for improvements in the National Health Service, the development of universities and schools and an increase in social benefits in line with the improved standards of living. The Government's public expenditure programmes have gone some way towards meeting these demands for a higher standard of public services.
In the restrictive measures we have had to take and the cuts we have had to make in public expenditure, it is in these spheres that we have had to make the main reductions. Anybody who criticises the level of public expenditure must realise that any proposal to reduce the level will involve a cutting back in either productive investment or in the social


services—or to make further cuts in defence expenditure. Those who make proposals for these reductions should be prepared to specify the areas in which they would wish the cuts to fall.
It is not possible to make any firm estimate at the moment of the prospective increase in the total public expenditure in 1967–68 over 1966–67, but it is likely to be a little over 5 per cent., at constant prices. The annual average for the three years from 1965–66 to 1967–68 is likely to be just under 4 per cent., at constant prices, confirming the figure which the hon. Member for Guildford mentioned. This compares with a figure of just over 4½ per cent. in the last two years under the previous Administration, so these figures will serve to correct and put in proper perspective the amount of growth in the public sector under the present Administration.

Sir Edward Boyle: Can the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that in the Budget debates we shall get reasonable information not only about the likely percentage movement in the public expenditure, but also in private expenditure and investment in 1968? I well remember that in Lord Amory's Budget in 1960 the likely movement in public expenditure, but gories was given. We attach considerable importance to that on this side.

Mr. MacDermot: I will draw the Chancellor's attention to the right hon. Gentleman's point.
The hon. Gentleman for Mid-Bedfordshire referred to the growth in Civil Service manpower. This has been happening steadily for the last five years under the previous Administration. It is important to remember that this growth in the Civil Service is only one aspect of growth in the public service generally. There has been, over many years, a steady and increasing growth in manpower in the local authorities, much of it in education and the police. I am not sure that this is

not where improved management conditions could effect greater economies.
I think that it is generally recognised by those who study it that the picture which is sometimes put forward, perhaps sometimes for purely partisan reasons, of an overgrown and bloated Civil Service is misleading. There is a highly efficient organisation in Government Departments, helped by a central department in the Treasury. It is of the highest standard. Its control of establishments and complementing in the Civil Service is very good. The Civil Service is often in the van in the use of computers and automatic data processing as a means of economising in manpower.
Under this Administration, as under the previous one, the increase was the consequence of new policies and it is the policies which have led to the growth. The difference is that hon. Members opposite dislike some, at least, of the policies we introduce and approved of the policies they introduced, but it is policies which lead to growth. The numbers of policies which lead to growth are relatively few. The Land Commission is obviously one and was a highly controversial proposal. Even in matters of taxation there was broad agreement that it was right to introduce the Corporation Tax and the Capital Gains Tax.
What produced the considerable expansion of manpower that was required was not so much, or merely, the decision to introduce those taxes, but the pressures—and quite proper pressures—to which we were subjected to refine those taxes, to make exceptions and transitional provisions to meet special cases and hard cases. It is those requirements which made such large demands for an increase in the Civil Service.
If I were to argue this ease in detail I would fail to do that which I set out to do, which was to be brief. I have found this debate interesting, and perhaps we will have a chance to return to this aspect in other debates shortly after the Easter Recess.

AGRICULTURE (STUDLEY COLLEGE)

5.0 a.m.

Mr. Angus Maude: So far tonight the House has been discussing matters of wide national or regional importance, though it could be argued that the debate on the cotton textile industry was not without a certain number of constituency-angled speeches. I think, however, that it will not be thought that in seeking to raise the matter of the Government's proposal to withdraw grant from—and thereby, in effect, to close—the Studley College, Warwickshire, I shall be raising a narrow constituency point.
It is true that it is a matter of great importance to me and to those in my constituency who know the admirable work the college has done over the last 70 years, but it is also true that this subject is not without its wider implications, not only for the career position of women in agriculture, horticulture and dairying, but also for the efficiency of the fanning, dairying and horticultural industries as a whole.
I should like to begin by saying to the Minister of State that I have some sympathy with him personally, though, as I hope to show, not very much with some of his arguments. I recognise that he personally has taken a great deal of trouble, and very conscientious trouble, over this case. He has gone to great lengths to visit the college to find out what was going on, and to listen to the arguments.
I recognise that he, like other Ministers, is under considerable pressure, and this is no doubt right, to save money by methods which are politically neutral, let us say. I also recognise—and I want to say this to him quite clearly, because he will see as I proceed and, I hope, will agree—that this is a matter completely without any party political content at all. To demonstrate my sincerity in this, I want to say that I sympathise with him because I recognise that he has to some extent been left with a problem on his hands which stems from a number of years of what I can only describe as the neglect of the financial needs of this college for which his Government are not wholly responsible.
The position is that this college, which has existed for some 70 years—and it is the only agricultural college wholly for women—has only been grant aided since 1926 or 1927, when the grant-aid Department was the Ministry of Agriculture. The grant started at, I think, about £1,000 a year, and has risen in 40 years to something like £30,000 a year. During the whole course of those 40 years the total amount in capital grant has been astonishingly small—£117,000 in all. This has gone in a fairly wide range of directions, mostly on such things as cottages for farm workers. There has been no capital grant for a building of an educational nature since £10,000 was spent on a new chemistry laboratory in 1954. The House will probably agree that £117,000 in capital grant in 40 years for a college now providing a residential education for 100 students is not an enormous sum of money. And although the numbers of students have grown very greatly during the past 20 years, there have never been any capital grants from the Government for residential accommodation.
Now there is a history to this matter which, although I do not want to detain the House very long, I must refer to briefly. In 1959, the Agricultural Colleges Committee of the Ministry of Agriculture, which was then the grant-giving Department, informed the college that if the numbers could be raised fairly substantially to about 100 the college would be provided with grants to enable it to build a staff hostel, a student hostel and other necessary buildings. It was also recommended that entry qualifications should be raised.
In response to that appeal the principal, Miss Hess, to whose work I think everybody who knows anything about it will pay a most sincere tribute, produced astonishing results. In two years the numbers of students accommodated went up from 65 to 102, the entry requirements were raised to four to five O-level passes as a minimum, and it is not unimportant to notice that in fact the average qualification on entry of these girl students is now about six to eight O-level passes, and many have A-levels as well, and these include at least one scientific subject.
The plain fact is that everything that the college was aked to do the college has done. This has been so, and if the


Minister disagrees with this then I hope he will say so and make clear in what respects he thinks the college has fallen short of its undertakings or of what could reasonably be required of it. The college, at all stages of its history, has invariably done what the Government asked it to do; it has sought to raise its standards, qualifications and courses to the utmost that could be expected of it.
Nevertheless, the undertakings that were given—and, of course, I absolve the Minister of State and his Government of responsibility for this except during the last two years—were newt carried out. The grants were not given and the additional accommodation was not made available to the college. And at the time when the Department of Education and Science became the grant-giving body, a circus of inspectors descended upon the college and looked at all the available resources and recommended that they should be increased.
It was subsequently suggested—and I have the assurance not only of the principal, but of the chairman of the governors for this—that they should think big and in terms of making the college one with anything up to 50 per cent. more students and providing considerably more luxurious and attractive accommodation and recreational facilities, for example, for the students.
We know that after that a period of financial stringency intervened and it was not unnatural that this should be held in abeyance. But the fact remains, and this is the point which I hope the Minister will deal with, that not only has the college always done what was aked of it, but all the promises that were held out to it have, in fact, come to nothing and the college is now paying the price for having been, within the limited resources it got, too successful.
The college has done everything that was asked of it, and it is now being reproached with the fact that it has not got the resources which the Government promised to it and then withheld from it. This is what I think the staff feel is particularly unjust, and I am sure the Minister will recognise that there is some foundation for their feeling of resentment.
The arguments which the Minister of State has produced rest fundamentally on two propositions. The first is that the

Pilkington Committee's Report on Agricultural Education has recommended changes in the types of courses in agricultural education which make Studley College an unsuitable vehicle for the new courses, and that the cost per student is relatively high and could be made lower only by an amount of capital expenditure which is unjustified. There is also the additional proposition that the Pilkington Committee is alleged to have come out firmly against single sex colleges for women.
As the Minister of State has developed these arguments subsequently in Answers to Questions and in letters they have become progressively less convincing as they have gone into more detail. On the question of cost per student, we want to be convinced—I hope that the Minister can convince us—that he is comparing like with like. It is only reasonable to compare cost per successful student rather than cost per total number of students in various kinds of institution, because the demand for places at Studley College is so high that it is able to insist on a very high entry qualification. It is clearly stated by the Pilkington Committee that there is a very close correlation between entry qualifications and success of students in the courses they take. There is little doubt that if we compare the cost per student successfully completing courses to diploma level at Studley and other institutions, Studley will be found to compare favourably rather than unfavourably.
The Minister of State has gone on to use one or two other arguments which are equally, if not more, misleading. For example, he has referred various people to the list 185 of agricultural education institutions, showing that there are 40 other establishments which offer full-time agricultural education courses. This must be taken in conjunction with another argument he has used, that the greater variety of courses recommended by the Pilkington Committee cannot be provided efficiently and economically at one small college. I wish that he would explain to me and to those interested in the welfare of this college how he squares this assertion with the fact that of the 40 establishments he has quoted as available alternatives to Studley, no fewer than 29 are smaller, some substantially smaller, than Studley.
Incidentally, five are for men only. I cannot believe that he would allege that it is a small matter in capital expenditure to make an all-male residential college into a mixed college. I should like to know exactly what the cost would be likely to be. Studley, in comparison with most of the other 40 establishments, is a large institution. It is not a small institution relative to the others in this list. The question of how much capital expenditure would be involved to reduce the cost per student—and I again stress that it is the cost per successful student which is really relevant—is a matter for argument.
It had been suggested officially by the college, as the Minister of State knows, that 150 students, that is, about 50 per cent rise, would be appropriate and the estimates of what would be necessary depend to some extent on what one thinks would be the implications of the Pilkington Report when the new courses are worked out. Some official estimates have been as high as £400,000. The college maintains that £200,000 would almost certainly be adequate in the medium run and that this could be phased over a number of years. I hope that the Minister of State will go into greater detail about this.
I want to deal with one of the Minister's arguments which has caused some concern. He has said:
It so happens that usually fewer students from Studley than from other places take the national external examinations and the proportion of the candidates passing tends to be below the average.
This is an attempt to show—and it cannot have been adduced for any other reason—that Studley was a below average institution in efficiency.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): I am loath to interrupt what I regard as a fair and cogent speech, but I would be grateful if the hon. Member would give the reference of the quotation he ascribes to me.

Mr. Maude: It is a copy of a letter from the hon. Gentleman to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson), which was sent by the hon. Member to a student at the college and it was passed by her to me. It is not

marked "confidential" and it is signed by the Minister of State himself.
I will repeat the words:
It so happens that usually fewer students from Studley than from other places take the national external examinations and the proportion of the candidates passing tends to be below the average.
This argument could have been adduced only in an attempt to show that Studley was less efficient that the average. Otherwise, I do not know what was the point of putting it in a letter as an argument for withdrawing the grant. This is a thoroughly misleading proposition which can refer only to dairying and horticulture which are the two main courses at the college.
Except in the years 1962 and 1963, when there was a low average for some reason, the overall percentage pass rate in the national dairying diploma has been higher at Studley than over the country as a whole. The figure has sometimes been substantially higher, ranging from 92 per cent. average pass at Studley in 1961 compared with 65 per cent. pass nationally to a 69 per cent. pass rate at Studley in 1966 compared with a 63 per cent. national figure. Over a six year average or a three-year average since 1961 the pass rate at Studley in dairying has been higher than the national rate.
In horticulture, the position is rather different and there is a simple reason for this which, I think, the Minister of State's advisers have failed to comprehend. The National Diploma in Horticulture is a six-year course. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) knows, having been a Minister of Education and having had to deal with the teacher problem, and as the Minister of State knows from dealing with the same problem, when one is concerned exclusively with women students the statistics are disorganised by the high proportion of girls who get married during the course.
To use the figures in horticulture to any purpose, it is essential to compare like with like. It is no good taking the women in Studley and men and women in other institutions, because we all know that a much higher proportion of men complete a six-year course than of women, for obvious reasons, because so high a proportion of women leave to get married before the course is completed.
I therefore hope that the Minister will either justify what we believe to be a quite misleading, if not disingenous, suggestion that Studley is a less efficient institution than others, or withdraw the suggestion.
In conclusion, I must deal with the argument about the Pilkington Report, because it has been suggested that this offers conclusive proof that there is a good case for withdrawing grant from Studley. Not only do I not regard the Pilkington Report as being in any way conclusive or as being in any sense gospel, but I do not believe that it can be interpreted as justifying the withdrawal of grant from Studley. One could adduce a perfectly good case for saying that some of the things which the Pilkington Committee regarded as most essential in agricultural education are precisely what Studley is providing.
For example, on page 53 there is a comparative table—Table 8—for 1964–65 of women students taking diploma courses in various subjects compared with the total number of students in the country taking those subjects. In dairying, out of 166 students taking diploma courses 144 are women; that is, very nearly the lot. In horticulture, out of a total of 104 students 54 are women; that is, more than half. These represent overwhelmingly women students over the whole range of agricultural, horticulaural and dairying diploma courses. These are the mainstay of Studley College. Therefore, it is clear from these figures that Studley is concentrating on and providing efficiently exactly those courses which women predominantly require and, incidentally, in activitiees in which the jobs are predominantly available to them.
Finally, the argument which has been repeatedly used that the Pilkington Committee came down firmly in favour of mixed college provision and against single-sex colleges for women simply cannot be deduced from the Report. The whole of Chapter VI on the education of women takes only 2¾ pages. It is a pretty superficial job in every respect. The only thing in it which can be adduced as an argument against single-sex colleges for women is paragraph 154, which says simply:
It has been suggested to us that some parents and girls prefer a single sex college. While we do not doubt that this is so in some

cases other evidence has given no indication that this is now a widely held view, and we do not regard it as justifying separate institutional provision in agricultural education.
Maybe it would not justify us in making new institutional provision for women, but this is institutional provision which is already there and which the Government, by withdrawing the grant, are virtually intending to destroy. This is the difference. The Report says:
… other evidence has given no indication that this is now a widely held view "—
but what do the recruitment figures at Studley show? I hope that the Minister will give very careful attention to this point, because it is absolutely central to our case. In fact, as he knows, the tendency has been for the recruitment to the other farm institutes, and even the university departments of agriculture, to decline.
There is rather a difficulty in filling places. The position at Studley, on the other hand, is that Studley has steadily increased its entrance qualifications and is rejecting as many girls as it accepts. It has a waiting list for two years and is able to be highly selective among a large number of girls who wish to stay there. Studley has no difficulty in getting grants from the local authorities, which appear to consider it an admirable institution which gives an admirable education.
So, to say that there is no overwhelming demand is clearly wrong. Many more girls than there is room for want to go to Studley than apply for other institutions to which the Minister is trying to divert them. We should have some justification of the claim that their specific needs can be met elsewhere as they are met at Studley.
What the 100 girls now there feel bitter about—as do members of the staff who, with the girls, have cousins and friends at mixed colleges—is that in the mixed institutions, or the single-sex men's colleges which are now to be mixed, the emphasis will aways be on the majority; and that is the men's section. The women, always in the minority, will be the less considered of the two sexes. There are more jobs for men in agriculture, and more places for them in the colleges and farm institutions, and the girls feel that they will not get the specific attention to their needs and not get the sort of jobs they can do best.
The Minister has tended to suggest that this training can be as well provided elsewhere, but there is no comparable course, with as high an entrance qualification as Studley demands. There are courses for farm clerks and some providing a reasonably high level, but for girls with lower entrance qualifications than Studley.
I have talked to the National Farmers' Union and to individual farmers about this, farmers who have employed these girls, and nobody ever suggests that there is any other organisation turning out girls with the depth of training that Studley imparts to the girls it turns out. At a time when the whole business-like efficiency of farming is something of the greatest importance to this country, it really does seem crazy to destroy an institution which is turning out girls who are revolutionising—and that is absolutely true in some cases—the accounting methods of not very efficient farmers.
In short, it seems that, for arguments which are adduced to justify a measure taken almost exclusively to save £30,000 a year and a virtually unknown amount of capital expenditure, for arguments which are in themselves doubtful, the Government are willing to destroy an institution which has existed for 70 years, which has given satisfaction to the employers of all its students and which is regarded by women as being the institution best fitted for their particular needs and virtually irreplaceable.

5.30 a.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) in the very persuasive case which he has put forward in requesting the Minister to have further thoughts about what is admittedly a very difficult problem—difficult only for financial reasons, although I accept that they are weighty.
From an agricultural standpoint, anyone in agriculture must be very concerned at the prospective abolition of one of the most valuable sources of highly-qualified women at a time when the need for technically well-educated people at technical and officer level as well as below is not only unsatisfied, but is certain to increase. I mention only the expansion which the Government hope for in the

dairy industry under the Price Review and all the obvious possibilities of joining the Common Market. These will multiply the demand for very skilled technical personnel.
For practical purposes in agriculture, one knows that the Studley-trained person is likely to be good in the sense that her potential is usually fully realised. I have seen that in a young girl from our village, who worked on my farm. She went to Studley and returned well launched on the career which followed. The last thing which I did for her was to recommend her for an important post of milk officer in a large city in Scotland. On marrying, she left the land, but, by reason of her Studley training, she was still able to apply for an important post. This is typical of the contribution which Studley people have made not only to the agricultural industry, but to all the ancillary industries.
The explanation is, I think, simple. Studley seems to concentrate on the three subjects—work with cows and plants or as farm secretary—which women do best and which they like doing. My hon. Friend pointed out that Studey insists on a very high entry qualification. I believe that the students work harder, particularly women, in a residential single-sex community if only because they concentrate more and there is probably less distraction.
But perhaps there is a deeper reason, and that is that girls are drawn to Studley because they feel very vocational about the training which Studley gives, and they are likely to remain true to that vocation which, combined with their good examination results, makes them sought after by employers. The demand for Studley "diplomats" exceeds the supply.
Like my hon. Friend, I wonder whether much too much weight has been given to the tailpiece in the chapter on women in the Pilkington Report. Even if one is against single-sex colleges, I cannot see that that is a justification for destroying the only one that there is for women. It has a waiting list, and it is significant that there is space in agricultural education both below and above Studley. The University Central Council for Admissions Report on University Places pointed out that quite a lot of agricultural places in universities were not filled. It is significant that there


should be such a demand to go to Studley, which is in between, and it also reflects many employers' preference, particularly in the industries ancillary to agriculture, for someone with a diploma plus practical experience instead of a graduate for many posts.
I agree with my hon. Friend that Pilkington makes the case for, and not against, Studley. In Chapter 1, the director of the National Agricultural Advisory Service is quoted as forecasting steady replacement of mixed farming by more specialised and intensive systems. The Report goes on to say that that trend must be matched by more specialised courses instead of broad general courses, so that the subject is treated in greater depth than can be given in a one-year certificate course.
The key paragraph is paragraph 17, which states:
… provision to meet these specialised needs is a most important growing point in agricultural education.
It stresses that the demand for those technical people who are competent to take charge of particular enterprises is now more important than that for just the general "manager" I do not think that one can have a better example of the technically qualified person in this respect than the skilled dairy herds-woman. The paragraph concludes by saying that employers are much more interested in the specialised ex-student with training in depth, and that that kind of training makes them have more respect for, and interest in, the value of agricultural education.
In Chapter 4, on course organisation, Pilkington recommends wider ranges of courses to match the different levels of school-leaving qualifications, stressing that the following advantage, shown in paragraph 61, could be expected:
(a) More effective organisation of teaching with a more homogeneous group of students. (A special study which we have made of students leaving diploma courses in 1964 has shown a positive correlation between entry qualifications and final results.)
I should have thought that that is precisely what Studley gives. It is homogeneous and it has had high entry requirements and good results.
I do not believe that the suggested alternatives will effectively meet the needs of either the students or the industries.
In the absence of Studley, potential students may not be so attracted to a career in agriculture or horticulture. The industries are already short and want more all the time, and they will be worse off if Studley disappears.
Not long ago the then Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, stated that the nation could not afford to lose a single good school. I believe that to be a simple but profound educational truth. I am sure that it goes for Studley.

5.40 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): As I have already made clear in this House and elsewhere, the overriding consideration governing the decision to withdraw grant from Studley College was the need to use scarce resources to the maximum educational advantage. I assure the House that the main issue here was not the continuation of the deficiency grant as such, but the long-deferred question whether it was right to incur the very substantial capital expenditure which was essential if Studley was to be made fit for continuation as an agricultural college within the context of the needs of the future.
I will come later to the question whether, even after this expenditure had been incurred, the college would still have been able satisfactorily to cope with modern requirements. I have been somewhat surprised at seeing figures of cost put on this expenditure in the public discussion about Sudley, since, as far as I am aware, an exact final estimate of cost was not agreed by my Department and the governors of the college.
But, certainly, we agreed, and I think that the figures quoted support this, that, whatever the necessary capital outlay, the total—not the first instalment, whether it be £200,000 or a little more—would be very substantial. It would certainly run into hundreds of thousands of pounds—according to my advice, upwards of £400,000.
The hon. Member for Stratford-onAvon (Mr. Maude) suggested that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which was responsible for the college up to 1964, made a promise of a major capital grant if student numbers were raised to 100. That is not so. The


Ministry was concerned with the high cost per student at Studley, with its low numbers, some years ago, and undertook to consider the question of a capital grant if numbers were increased, as they were, indeed, with the introduction of the farm secretaries course. However, it became necessary to consider the problem in the context of the future of diploma courses, which were eventually reviewed by the Pilkington Committee.
The hon. Member also said that a specific promise was made to the governors on this question of a capital grant. I do not for a moment accuse him of anything except being under an impression which I do not personally believe would be justified by the facts. Her Majesty's inspectors visited the college, examined the position and advised the governors as to how to put forward proposals, but at no time promised that such proposals would be met with a substantial capital grant.

Mr. Maude: I cannot see why, if there was never any intention that this grant should be available, Her Majesty's inspectors should ever have bothered to mention it. It seems an extraordinary proposition. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the inspectors went there, said, "It would be a good thing to think big and do this and that", and then went away and said that they did not give the college to understand that it would get a grant? What were they saying?

Mr. Roberts: There is nothing extraordinary in officials going to a college, examining the position, hearing the views of the governors, and assisting to the best of their ability with advice to indicate the form of proposal which should be made, without indicating that, necessarily, it would receive a favourable answer. It is not extraordinary, and I wish to make that point clear, in fairness to those officials.
I had to consider whether rebuilding at Studley was the best way of using these resources, having regard to the general provision of agricultural education at this level and, in particular, in the light of the recent Report of the Advisory Committee on Agricultural Education.
As the House knows, one of the main recommendations of that Report, and one

which has been accepted by my right hon. Friend, is that the existing pattern of agricultural diploma courses should be reorganised radically to bring it into line with the national pattern at this level. In the past, full-time agricultural courses outside universities have consisted mainly of two-year science-based diploma courses which recruited students most of whom had about six O-level passes in the General Certificate of Education, and one-year certificate courses with much less stringent academic entry requirements.
The Advisory Committee found evidence that, in recent years, there has been an improvement in the academic attainment of students indicated by the number of students with A-levels embarking on diploma courses and the growing number of students who have been entering one-year supplementary courses after doing well in the one-year certificate course.
In the light of its assessment of industrial need and student admission, the Committee recommended that above the level of one-year certificate courses, the present structure of courses should be replaced by a two-level structure under which there would be ordinary national diploma courses recruiting students with a minimum of four relevant O-level passes, and higher national diploma courses requiring at lease one relevant A-level pass or the equivalent.
This will enable students to join agricultural courses at the same levels as they can join courses leading to other industries. It will be an improvement on the present structure of agricultural courses in that it will enable students to enter courses which are appropriate to their educational attainments.
The Report also made specific recommendations affecting education in dairying and horticulture, which are the two main subjects offered at Studley. For dairying, the Report advocates separating dairy technology from dairy husbandry. The implications of that for colleges like Studley are clear. It is possible that the latter only will continue to be dealt with in the agricultural examination structure, and that dairy technology will be grouped for the future with other food technologies. In horticulture, the Report emphasises the wide variety of industrial demand, a considerable part of which is


not catered for by the current Studley courses.
In view of those recommendations, it was clear that there could be no question of Studley continuing to run its courses as they are at present. This was, therefore, the right time to consider whether, at substantial capital cost, it should try to adapt its courses to the pattern of agricultural education which is now taking shape, or whether, without the same capital expenditure, the necessary educational provision could not be made as effectively, or even more effectively, at other centres which could be developed as strong centres in their respective subjects for men and women alike.
It is right to say that, following the publication of the Advisory Committee's Report, Studley submitted to the Department proposals for a number of ordinary National Diploma and Higher National Diploma courses, and I can assure the House that these were very carefully considered before our decision was taken.
I have to say that, unfortunately, Studley placed a rather limited interpretation on the Committee's recommendations. The courses it proposed were designed to lead to ordinary National Diplomas in four subjects, and Higher National Diplomas in three subjects, and they included farm administration and various post-diploma subjects. Unfortunately, the proposals showed no clear recognition of the distinctive aims and character of each type of course, and these proposals were to be achieved by continuing the mixed entry levels.

Sir E. Boyle: What does that mean?

Mr. Roberts: That the new developments will aim at Higher and National Diploma qualifications, and will seek to attract for the higher course students who are identifiable as to their attainments, partly by A-level qualifications, and will seek to attract to the ordinary course students who are identifiable as to their attainments by the relevance as well as the number of their O-level qualifications. I would not wish to detain the House or the right hon. Gentleman with a special distinction about the importance of not unduly mixing entry levels if one is to achieve coherence both of study and of attainment at the end of the study.

Mr. Maude: I am sorry if my right hon. Friend and I are being stupid about this, but we find it somewhat difficult to appreciate what the Minister is saying. Is he saying that Studley College, or any college, should not take two different kinds of students with two different kinds of qualification for two different kinds of course, that there can only be colleges specialised either in higher or in lower? If they are to do both, they must take students with both kinds of entry qualifications. What is wrong with that?

Mr. Roberts: I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman says is what is opposed. The college, like other technical colleges, will seek to train and educate for the ordinary and Higher National Diplomas. It is important that the recruitment into those courses should be from definable groups according to attainment at school that will study and profit and qualify most effectively the basis of their attainment at school and also the cohesive character of their group study both at ordinary and at Higher National level. It is a mistake to mix the entry levels at either the ordinary or the higher entry point—

Mr. Maude: I apologise if we are not getting the point across. The Minister keeps saying that it is wrong to mix entry qualifications, but we do not understand this phrase. Does it mean that the college must not accept O-level qualifications for the ordinary diploma or A-level qualifications for the higher diploma and that these two courses for different kinds of girls cannot be run in the same college? But some other institutions are doing this. If it does not mean that, what does it mean?

Mr. Roberts: This is precisely the point, that, as far as possible, there should be a proper qualification for entering O- and A-level courses—

Mr. Maude: Only one kind in each college?

Mr. Roberts: —no, both kinds, the ordinary and Higher National courses—but that for each one should try to assemble the appropriate group for each entry, each being a distinct course.
We concluded, therefore, that each course would be better placed in an establishment with better facilities for dealing with it. This is to cast no reflection on


the good work of the principal and her colleagues at the college in recent years with the resources at their disposal. I interrupted the hon. Gentleman when he was quoting from my later letter, because I thought that he had received the wrong impression from one phrase. I am sure that he will accept my word that I did not intend to cast aspersions on the standards or work of Studley College but simply to indicate this trend.
Figures have been given in reply to a Question which might bear one interpretation. I agree that we should handle carefully any statistics deemed to reflect the achievement of any college. We are dealing with a changed situation both because of the changed educational requirements and because of the specified capital sums which would have to be spent on Studley: it could cost £400,000 to bring it up to the required standards, but this takes no account of the amount which would have to be spent to enable the college to revise and expand its activities to conform with the Pilkington Report.
There is absolutely no question of sex discrimination here. It is true that a substantial body of opinion, including the Advisory Committee, considers that, in agriculture as in other subjects, the balance of advantage lies in educating men and women together, in the same institutions. But this was not the reason—and I have never advanced this argument to justify the decision—for taking this decision about Studley College. My right hon. Friend and I were concerned solely with the question of making the best use of resources. As the House will understand, any saving which can be made by cutting out unnecessary expenditure means that we can devote more to other educational needs.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon asked about alternative places for students who would otherwise go to Studley. The annual intake of students to the three main courses provides  Studley is about 25 for dairying, 15 for horticulture and 20 for the secretarial course. I am assured that there should be no difficulty about providing places for qualified applicants for such courses in other centres, after Studley is closed.
Moreover, in approving courses of the new types which I have mentioned, we

shall take into account the total demand for dairying, horticulture and farm secretarial work so that there will be places for suitably qualified women. Further, more women taking other courses in these subjects at the various levels will involve substantially less capital outlay than would be needed at Studley.
As the House knows, grants will be continued until 1969 to reduce to the minimum hardship or inconvenience to all concerned at the College. This will enable the present students and those enrolled for entry this autumn to complete their courses and will permit intake into the one-year farm secretarial course in 1968.
Studley is a private foundation and its future is entirely for the governors to decide. But as I have stated, my Department will be glad to give any help and advice it can if the governors so wish. It is not a pleasant or easy task to recommend the withdrawal of grant from any educational establishment, leading to its closure. I considered this question carefully—indeed, anxiously—over a long period.
As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon was fair to admit at the outset of his remarks, this matter has been in question for many years. I visited the college to see for myself and to discuss matters at some length with the principal and the governors. I took care to ensure that I did not take up too much of the time of the discussion which we had that afternoon at Studley, since I was anxious that the governors should have every opportunity of putting their case.
I took into account every possible viewpoint and representation. I postponed the decision until one national body had had an opportunity to consider the question and put forward its views. Then, and only then, did I take the decision, as it was my duty to do. I believe that it was the right one and that it will serve the new and developing needs of agricultural education in this country.

6.4 a.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: The news that the Department intended to discontinue the grant to Studley College caused very great concern and unhappiness not only among the college governors and those who had first-hand experience of the college, but throughout the Midlands.
We are dealing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) so rightly said, with a college which has given the fullest satisfaction over 70 years, to the girls who have been trained there, to those like my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) who have had experience of those who have been so trained, and not least to the local authorities who have given grants to pupils concerned.
This matter has caused great concern and I do not think that when the Minister of State's speech is read those who have expressed concern will feel much wiser about the decision. I tried to follow his argument, but I cannot say that I found his case at all convincing.
Undoubtedly, there is some conflict and disagreement about what happened in the past when inspectors visited the college. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon that it seems quite clear that in the past the college has done all it has been asked to do, but at the same time, the governors had some expectation, to put it no higher, of capital grants which have not been made available.
I come to the curious part of the Minister of State's speech, about mixed entry qualifications. We were both trying to understand what he was saying. There can be no difficulty or anything surprising about the college catering for two levels of qualification, those with a qualification of four O-levels studying for the ordinary National Diploma and those with higher qualifications studying for the Higher National Diploma. There is no disagreement that courses cannot go on as at present, as my hon. Friend made abundantly clear. In fact the average qualification has been neither one A level nor four O-levels. The average qualification is six to eight O-levels.
It seemed to me the Minister was speaking as though levels of qualification on leaving school tended to remain almost rigid. Volume 3 of the Statistics of the Department of Education and Science show that it is not so. On all the available evidence, predictions based on the Ministry's own figures, if the present average qualification is six to eight O-levels, undoubtedly more of these students could be expected to achieve at least one A-level in the

future. I can see no grounds for the view that, on present trends, students would not be forthcoming under the Pilkington formula for a Higher National Diploma course.
As for the ordinary Diploma course, if a certain number of students in the college are not sufficiently qualified to take the Higher Diploma course, but more than qualified to take the ordinary course, does that matter much? One cannot always expect a perfect match between the qualifications achieved by those who have left school and their qualifications for the course they are about to undertake. The intake level has been rising and I can see no reason to doubt that one would get students well and suitably qualified for the two types of course the Advisory Committee had in mind.
As to the cost, I realise that the time had come for a considerable capital operation on the college and I only make two comments on that. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon quite properly intimated, I doubt whether there will be very much difference between making this available at Studley and making it available at other institutions. We know very well from many aspects of education, including secondary education, that one of the more, and surprisingly costly operations can be the conversion of a men's college into a mixed college. Turning men's institutions into mixed institutions often involves more capital expenditure than we have expected. From that point of view, therefore, I doubt whether the saving will be very substantial.
The other point is that in education we think naturally of the main blocks of capital expenditure—the school building programme, the university programme, the technical college programme—but there are a good many institutions which fall conveniently under none of those heads. I had the experience—I will not go into it now—of having to consider the future of the long-term adult colleges which come under a category of their own. The same is true of colleges like Studley, and I very greatly deplore the tendency for an old established college like Studley to come off less well over capital expenditure and to be forced to close down altogether simply because it did not fit very easily into the generally recognised pattern.
Without being sentimental in any way, I believe that we should be particularly


concerned with the future of those institutions which have served the community well over a very long period—private institutions which receive public grants. I believe that we should welcome institutions which to some extent straddle the private and the public worlds. The college has served the community well, its standards have been rising and it has given the greatest satisfaction to the girls, the employers and the local authorities.
I deplored the Government's decision as soon as I read of it. Listening to my hon. Friend, I must say that I felt more than ever convinced that they must have a very strong case if they were to justify their action. I confess that after listening to the Minister I feel less satisfied than ever with the Government's action, and that after what I feel was his remarkably unconvincing defence we on this side must reserve the right to consider whether, at a future date, we return to this matter again.

NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS

6.13 a.m.

Mr. David Webster: Coming from a dairying part of the world, I must say that I was much depressed by the speech we have just had from the Government Front Bench. Switching to something else that is happening in my part of the world, where we have nuclear power stations being built, we have to accept at present that it is almost a truism to say that we are in a state of constant reappraisal of fuel policies.
With nuclear energy, we have the changes from the first stage of the Magnox type of reactor to the second stage of the advanced gas-cooled reactor, and the different problems there. At the same time, making life very much more complicated, we have the advent of natural gas as a commercial proposition, and we cannot as yet be absolutely certain what effect this will have. With nuclear power stations it will not be a very lasting effect, because we are talking of something that will supply the base load for power raising. We are talking of something with a 50-year-plus consideration.
We assume that our experience with natural gas will be the same as Holland's,

where one would give it 30–40 years of life. There is the dilemma. If one goes shorter, one has the risk of exploring it and using it too quickly, and if one spins it out too long it might become redundant. This is the tremendous problem in fixing prices for natural gas, and one can see the difficulties the Minister has in this connection. But we are already having as we change from the Magnox to the advanced gas-cooled reactor a situation in which these larger power stations, with the economy scale which they possess, producing power at 10–15 per cent. more cheaply than does the orthodox type of power station using coal.
As we appreciate, the Magnox type, which is based on Calder Hall, will, when we get to the end of the programme, be producing 5,000 megawatts. With the advanced gas cooled reactor we are having what is in effect an engineering extension to the Magnox type, and in this programme we have 8,000 megawatts being produced. I think this is a minimum, and I hope the Minister will say that there will be approval very shortly to bring it up to 10,000 or 12,000 megawatts, which is probably what will be necessary for the power production of this country. This is a case of graphite core with a carbon dioxide coolant and slightly enriched uranium in stainless steel cans. This produces higher fuel ratings.
In the case of Magnox we are having a considerable change from 280 megawatts at Berkeley to 1,200 megawatts at Wylfa, with the tremendous improvement derived from this. Each is different in design, and in each case I think it is right to say that we are not having a repeated design and the economy of duplication because it has been a different design and it has been advancing progressively. I think that is the case with every power station designed and put into action and every power station that is on the drawing board at the present time; the argument regarding economy of design duplication has not so far been one which is practicable in the history of nuclear power raising in this country.
The only snag with the A.G.R. has been regarding the way in which the carbon dioxide oxidises the graphite at high temperature, which has been a very great difficulty. But as one comes from the


A.G.R. to the type that we are having at Dounreay, the fast breeder reactor, we are having—and this is looking about 15 years ahead—a capital cost that is no higher and a running cost that is the same.
Then one hears of the Heysham power station of 2,500 megawatts, which we hope will come in in 1977–79. The exciting thing is that for the first time it will be near a population centre, where there is no strong objection being made on the ground of amenity.
When we come to Seaton Carew and Immingham, and the problems of Heysham, which are very particular, there was a difficulty I know about siting. But sea water will, I think, be used for the first time for cooling, and one of the byproducts according to the A.E.A. is desalination.
The Magnox type of reactors are all twin reactors and range from Bradwell and Berkeley, in 1962, to Hinckley A and Dungeness A, both of which are to be duplicated by the A.G.R., and Transffwydd, coming on the Oldbury at 600 megawatts and Wylfa at well over 1,000, bringing the total to 4,500 megawatts that Magnox has produced.
Magnox uses natural uranium in magnesium alloy cans with a carbon dioxide coolant. It is interesting to note that at Calder Hall and Chapel Cross the system is being operated at 98 per cent. load factor. This gain will be relevant when I come to talk about what, I hope, will be the guidelines and ground rules of assessing the cost of by megawatt hours, which is the only thing that matters, providing that all the safety factors are the same.
In an age of increasing interest rates, it was of course necessary to increase the rating of the fuel, that is to say the megawatts per tonne. I say this not as a matter of one-upmanship but, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, this is the European type of ton, ·98 of a normal ton of uranium. This is most essential. There is also the raised steam temperature per thermal efficiency. In the case of the Magnox the uranium metal is not allowed to go over 660 degrees centigrade and the Magnox can melts at 650 degrees. So one has 620 degrees at the uranium centre and 500 degree for the can. The outlet gas temperature is no more than 400 degrees centigrade. When we come to the gas-cooled reactor, if one is to have an ad-

vantage from this immense capital cost by the use of systematic uranium oxide fuel, the beryllium can is now replaced by stainless steel. The rating has gone up from 3 mw/tonne to 12 mw per tonne, which is a very considerable increase in efficiency. This makes a basis for industrial plants of 500 mw alone and a basic kilowatt at a load of 75 per cent. and a cost of 0·5d. per unit. This brings the matter into competitive tendering and the thermal rating is increased from 33 per cent. to 34 per cent. We are getting four times as much power for the same kind of reactor, and the fuel life has been lengthened by a factor of four.
We have the exciting development of Dungeness B, where we are hoping to have power in the national grid in 1971 and where it is 15 per cent. cheaper than the most advanced type of coal fuel-raising station. One sees ahead in about 15 years' time a fast breeder reactor as at Dounreay, which was in full power in 1963. In these matters, these nuclear power stations are produced by baseload because that fits our requirements in the domestic market, but that is not necessarily the requirement of a nuclear power station in the markets for which we are trying to sell overseas.
A matter which is of the greatest importance is the Dragon experiment at Winfrith, where there has been a great deal of experimenting in high temperature and this efficiency has been improved. We see the difficulty that this is a project of the O.E.C.D. where the budget from Great Britain is £10 million and £25 million from Europe. We have the great problem that as far as I know—I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can give good news on this subject—the Euratom budget has not been agreed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to say either that it has been agreed or that he sees real hope on the horizon that it will be. If it is not, I hope he will do what Sir William Penny is begging should be done—guarantee that the British Government will continue to keep this valuable experiment ahead, because this is something on which a great deal of useful work has been done and something which is coming to a commercial proposition which can be very useful.
As I have said, with these higher fuel rating, one has the A.G.R. at Dungerness at 1,200 megawatts, and the Hickley B,


where there was a delay, which I regretted, in announcing the contract, with information being trickled out about the 1,500 megawatt contracts. The consortia trying to get this contract have been trying to sell abroad, particularly in Belgium, where they are being told by the potential purchasers that they cannot see much point in buying if the British Government do not show any confidence in it. The delay of about seven months is regrettable and has damaged our export chances. I hope that it is not now too late. The advanced gas-cooled reactor is very cheap, but it must be at base load, because we are competing with the Americans who provide concessions on enriched uranium and apply considerable pressure, which we all understand, as they are a very commercial nation. It is necessary to produce a smaller type of reactor for export, and preparatory work might be done by the Government for the country that is going to have it.
Our nuclear engineers are of a high standard but we are trying to sell something comparable to a Rolls Royce in a market which only wants a Mini. Encouragement should be given to consortia to meet the needs of the market. We are a pioneering scientific country having great difficulty in getting commercial application for what we are doing. This is one of the reasons behind the brain drain. Frequently we are unable to reward scientific and engineering effort either materially or with a feeling of accomplishment. The greatest danger is not the loss of designers but the loss of engineers to put the science into application and for whom there is a great demand from the Americans.
There is advantage in the bigger type of nuclear reactor in economy of scale. I would like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to a report of the Economic Committee of the Council of Europe for which I have the honour to be rapporteur for this subject. The report, approved by the Assembly last January, recommends in paragraph 5—
…the Committee of Ministers to encourage by all possible means, both in the framework of ENEA and elsewhere, the habit of showing generating costs per kilowatt/hour of electricity sent out from nuclear reactors calculated on a number of differing assumptions with regard to the overall rate of interest on the capital outlay, the period of amortization, and the average load factor to be expected during the

said period, the assumptions being selected to cover typical practices in this respect both in Europe and in North America.
This is extremely important, because if one has a rate at 10 per cent. under base load for 10 years amortisation, one gets an advantage of about 10 per cent. in cost. Amortisation for a conventional power station in this country is generally 30 years and 20 years in the case of a nuclear power station. The Americans, who are competing with us amortise theirs over a period of 30 years. They frequently assume in their costs a higher base load and a lower rate of interest. This gives an added disadvantage if an attempt is being made to assess the costs per kilowatt hour. As well as this pure economic consideration, there is the psychological difference. If it is assumed that the power station will be written off in 20 years, it is also assumed that it has only a 20-year useful life.
Those are two arguments which I hope will enable the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to say that his Ministry will be the first of the European Ministries of Power to follow my recommendation, or the Council of Europe's recommendation. It is good sense to get ourselves in line with American practice. We are competing with the Americans. It is not undiplomatic when many people in Europe think that we are balancing ourselves between American and Europe. It is also good business sense for us to take away an inherent disadvantage in economic terms.
I have mentioned the Dragon reactor. I think that the point has been made. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us something more about this. Looking further into the future, there is the fast breeder reactor which will be complementary to the plutonium-producing thermal neutron station. This will be essential in 10 or 15 years' time when there will be a shortage of uranium in the free world. I myself tend not to accept too much the market predictions, because so often in the past estimates of fuel and power requirements and necessities have proved to have been wrong. I also think that, if there is a real shortage of uranium, the price will rise and the marginal producer will come back into production.
My final point is something that worries me and which I confess is difficult and complicated, namely, the future


of the nuclear consortia. The A.E.A. has a team of designers. Each of the consortia has teams of designers and engineers. The Central Electricity Generating Board also has teams of designers. The argument on duplication could apply both ways. However, it would be dangerous if the A.E.A., as one assumes from some of the "leaked" or inspired information in the technical Press, is to be allowed to pick and choose as between the consortia. It might then be allowed to freeze out two of the consortia and then pick up the other one at leisure. This would not only be nationalisation by I do not know what type of door, but it would completely abolish any form of competition and I should have thought that it would be very bad indeed for our export chances.
It is frequently said, particularly by the Minister, that there has been a poor export performance by the industry. have showed that one of the difficulties is that very often we cannot compete in America. Where we have competed successfully, both in Japan and at Latina in Italy, it was for the smaller plant, and this is not necessarily the project which we have been most successful at producing, because of the economy of scale. The Belgian contract was one of considerable scale where we might well have had a little more from the Government.
There is also the argument of replication which I have no doubt we shall hear again this morning but which is not necessarily a proven case. We have had an advance in each design of nuclear power station through not having replication. I appreciate that almost £⅓ million can be wasted in competing contracts, but I am not at all sure that this is necessarily money down the drain. The consortia have certainly proved that equity capital has been risk capital, because in the early days of tendering to the Central Electricity Board there was not a great deal of fruit in the cake for them. Many people who thought that nuclear engineering would be a glamorous type of investment have found it not so and not as profitable as they would have wished.
On the question of unification of design effort, it is significant that the consortia were reluctant to agree a statement when the Minister met them to discuss this problem. One cannot tell ex-

actly what happened, but I think that the future of the industry is one which should be weighed with very great care. We do not want to dogmatise that necessarily there should be the same number of consortia as there are at present, but I strongly believe that there should not be complete domination by the State but that there should be competition.
I end as I started by saying that this is but one form of advanced skill where we have been right in the forefront. It is essential that we remain so; that we have co-operation, perhaps, along the lines on which the Prime Minister was thinking when he talked of having a European Technological Community. It is essential that we keep in this country the pioneering spirit, for there is plenty of room for that pioneering spirit and for the risk enterprise which we have seen in the past.

6.36 a.m.

Mr. Arnold Gregory: I am sure that the whole House is indebted, as I am, to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) for having introduced this important subject. He has started a debate on the broad basis of nuclear power, and I think there is only this difference between himself and myself and my own interest; for, whereas he has a nuclear power station in his part of the world, nuclear power engineering has secured an important place in the life of my constituency. That difference, perhaps, conditions one's attitude towards this subject, but, speaking broadly, I think we are in a crucial stage so far as the nuclear power industry is concerned. It has become a fascinating story over the last twenty years, and so far as the Minister of Technology is concerned, and his consultations to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, we need not only our domestic programme, but also the considerable export potential, and we await what the Minister has to say about the outcome of that.
We have heard of the concern of the Select Committee of the House which, within its broad terms of reference, is examining the scientific and technological expenditure in both the private and the public sectors. That is so especially in connection with our nuclear power programme at home and overseas. Then, we have Government concern and interest


in domestic and overseas costs, and the concern of the House that the right kind of policy is applied.
In this age we have to come to terms with a science and technology which is, basically, a threat to the very existence of mankind, although it is at the same time bound up with the welfare of the human race through what we now know as nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. In its relatively minor aspects, but nevertheless a most important matter for me, nuclear power engineering has secured a significant place in my own constituency. It provides an industry employing many hundreds of people in Stockport and brings some measure of prestige to the town. It is quite clear that the development and expenditure to which we had to be committed during the war created, and in terms of cost cushioned the way ahead for the establishment of nuclear technology as we know it today.
The domestic nuclear engineering industry has been dependent upon the pioneering work and initiative of the scientists, technologists, designers, and engineers in the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, and we now know that the achievements in this new technology led to the prototype reactors at Calder Hall, Windscale and Chapel Cross. There is the advanced gas-cooled reactor, and the heavy water type, all part of this fascinating development. It is a most significant development. I think that I am right in saying that this is the work of one design team, and it underlines the one-design-team system by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.
Now our thoughts must turn to how these resources can be best used to serve the nation in the production of electrical power by the most efficient and cheapest means. Just before coming to this debate, I read an American magazine which illustrated the size and magnitude of America's exporting industry allied to relatively inferior domestic performance. It asked, "What are we reckoning with?". The magazine made the point that we are dealing with a most elegant furnace to boil water. This is what we are getting to in the service of the human race. We have been wrestling technologically-wise to devise the cheapest way of creating electrical power.
With the adoption of the advanced gas cooled reactor for the Dungeness B station, we were told that this was a winner and that it was a great achievement for British engineering. It was emphasised that it was a major breakthrough for British technology and engineering. If this is so, one could well presume that the advanced gas cooled reactor would be just the thing to be repeated, to be the subject of replication, in basic design and production for a substantial run of three or four successive British stations and to prove their worth in national and international terms. In the first instance, we would create the most up to date, efficient and effective source of electrical power for domestic use and a first class science-based prestige export industry. But, on the face of it, these things do not seem to have happened.
The simple fact is that we in Britain have generated, and still generate, more electricity than the rest of the world put together—three times as much as the United States. By December, 1966, we had generated 67 million megawatt hours compared with 23 million in the United States. We still have the edge on that, but the general belief is that we have still not created a viable and efficient domestic nuclear engineering industry. We are still missing the key to taking full advantage of our opportunities in the field, while the United States—true, with all its advantage in straight commercial terms—has already achieved this objective. The Americans are firmly established and developments through replication policy, with which the hon. Gentleman quibbled, and are working wonders for the domestic nuclear power engineering industry in the United States. The Americans consistently use their own nuclear power at home and repeatedly sell them abroad.
The United States have repeated design on the water system and go on repeating stations on this basis. They have long since achieved a nuclear hardware and size on a standard design basis. I understand that it is their common practice to select design features and then to advance major schemes. I do not think that we should shrink from this successful and workable United States system simply because it is American. We can adopt it here. It means a major nuclear engineering industry for home


and overseas use with a central theme of replication for the sake of real economic and commercial success in a highly competitive world situation.
If we claim a technological superiority, if we have achieved a major breakthrough, the engineering feat of the age, where stands the A.G.R. today? We might ask if Dungeness B has led to the price and efficiency advantages through Hinkley B to Hunterston. What is happening and where stands a replicated A.G.R. station today is the big question. Why have we not managed to sell the A.G.R. system and advance it to the world market? These are questions which I feel deserve an answer, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will deal with them.
Having achieved as much as we have in terms of technology, we should be shaping a nuclear engineering industry that is viable and competitive in world terms. The main ingredients of it are clear: one design team instead of five linked with the U.K.A.E.A. The undertaking is at the moment extremely expensive, and my right hon. Friend the Minister must take that point into account as a cost factor in rearranging the nuclear power industry. We should link this with the U.K.A.E.A., with real powers to create a sensible and efficient domestic industry, and to create clearly identifiable export opportunities, to bring about a single, central consortium of some strength—instead of three—consisting of architectural engineers, and creating a nuclear island, with in-build replication of the A.G.R. system into an overall design scheme. With a system and industrial arrangement of that sort, we shall shape ourselves as a unit capable of exploiting for national good an industrial and scientific system in which we have proven ourselves second to none.
It has been said that our technical lead can and must continue to be maintained—if it is not we do not deserve to survive in nuclear and technological terms. That is a challenge which my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend are facing, but for exports time is not on our side.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Dr. M. S. Miller (Glasgow, Kelvingrove) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. Member wish to speak on this topic?

Mr. Miller: Yes, Mr. Speaker—if I may.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman had not informed me.

Dr. Miller: I merely wish to ask my hon. Friend to refer to the possible medical applications of nuclear power, both in research and clinically. I think that the scope of the debate is wide enough to encompass that, and perhaps he could make a valuable reference to it in his reply.

6.47 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Jeremy Bray): It is a measure of the interest the House has taken in nuclear power over the years that it should be the subject the Select Committee on Science and Technology has chosen for its first inquiry. We had a foretaste of the expertise that that will bring to the benefit of the House in the learned speech of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), arising from his experience as rapporteur of the Economic Committee of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe. Reports of that Committee have been of considerable interest, and we much appreciate the work Members have done overseas, not only in sorting out questions of nuclear policy generally, but in making sure the merits of Britain's achievements are widely known.
I could not quite make up my mind whether the hon. Member found the pace of change exciting or depressing, but I think that he ended up by finding it exciting, as I am sure we all do. The hon. Member asked a number of specific questions, which I shall refer to as precisely as I can.
First, there was the question of the Dragon programme. As the hon. Member correctly said, it is not wholly within our control. The delay in extending the programme beyond the end of 1967 is not of our making. We are keen to see an extension and are doing what we can to secure agreement. But Euratom has had some difficulty in deciding its own programme, and until that is resolved it is unlikely that we shall get a decision on the programme. We are doing our best to secure a decision as quickly as possible.
On the question of the effect of the Hinkley B order on the interest taken in A.G.R. systems in Belgium, we have


made sure that the Belgians understand that any delay in placing the order had nothing to do with doubts about Hinkley. We have made plain that we have none; it is simply a question of the rate of growth in demand for electricity in this country not having been as fast as we expected, re-phasing the electricity investment programme having been necessary, and therefore the order not having been placed as soon as had been expected. But this certainly will have no effect on the evaluation by the Belgians of the possibilities of their using a British system.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right on the question of the size of the reactor appropriate to the export market. We do not have all our eggs in one basket in this respect. The Atomic Energy Authority has been active, as I know following my visit to Yugoslavia, where it has been exploring the possibilities, although they are not immediate, in promoting the advantages of S.G.H.W. as a possible system for different countries.
On the question of picking the system which is most suited to the needs of the third country, I am sure that we have a great deal to do to help such countries. It is a matter of fitting in the appropriate type of generating system, be it reactor or coal-fired power station, to the load distribution, the existing inventory of generating capacity in that country. The mere fact that we operate the biggest network in the world and apply some of the most sophisticated techniques to this investment planning means that we are able to give advice to countries considering investment in nuclear power on what is available to them long before they get to the stage of inviting tenders for any particular reactor system.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the importance of rewarding and stimulating scientists and engineers in this vital field and giving them a continuing load of work, the continuing stimulus of seeing their work put into application. I think that they have had this. He mentioned the fact that we have not been able to achieve the benefits of replication because of the steady technical advance which has made the advantages of a more efficient design for the next station more than outweigh the advantages of replicating the

previous one. This process has only come from the great work in the consortia, the Atomic Energy Authority and the Central Electricity Generating Board as well. The size of the future programme is a matter which has to be dealt with in the context of the fuel policy review, to which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power is giving a great deal of attention at present.
On the question of comparison of costs of alternative reactor systems, in which I know the hon. Gentleman has taken great interest—in, I suspect, trying to establish entirely objectively that A.G.R. in the right context is easily the best reactor system available—there are real technical difficulties in establishing simply the table which will show the generating costs under different circumstances.
I think we have gone a very long way—further than anyone else—in producing an objective comparison in the Dungeness assessment. It would be very much to the advantage of third countries if assessments as thorough as this were published with some of the American proposals which are claiming fantastically—in fact, absurdly—low costs by any standards of operating criteria which would be required in third countries.
The number of factors involved relate not simply to the interest rate, the load factor and the depreciation period but also to the engineering costs in different countries—which are different for civil, mechanical and electrical engineering—to the amount of equipment which is supplied in the third country rather than exported from the supplying country and also to the existing stock of generating capacity, because the way that is used is changed when a more efficient station comes in underneath it, taking the base load. For all these reasons, the evaluation of any particular proposals has to be a matter of hard salesmanship and detailed study in the export market. This has been organised through B.N.X. and the activities of the Atomic Energy Authority overseas. One of the most important considerations in the review of the structure of the nuclear engineering industry is to make sure that we are able to compete effectively in overseas markets in the preparation of the ground as well as going up to the point of tendering and the actual construction operations.
It is true to say that the British nuclear industry has a very high reputation overseas. Wherever Atomic Energy Authority, B.N.X. or consortia representatives go, they command a great deal of respect, because we have more experience of the operation of nuclear stations than anyone else in the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Gregory) takes pride in coming from a constituency which produces nuclear power stations. I share his pride, because we on Tees-side are equally concerned with the industry. We are generally aware that one cannot separate nuclear engineering, when it comes to fabrication and design, from general plant engineering. It is very much a matter of concern that plant engineering costs in this country generally—not specifically with reference to nuclear stations—have been uncomfortably high not only in comparison with America but with some of the costs which we are having to face in deliveries from Italy and Japan. There is a need for rationalisation, and for better organisation in the heavy plant construction industry generally. That is a matter at which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology is looking, with the help of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation.
On the actual organisation of the nuclear consortia, the number of design teams, and so on, as the House knows, my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Power have had talks with the chairmen of the consortia. Those talks are continuing, but at the request of the consortia, no statements are being made until the talks have progressed somewhat further. I am grateful to hon. Members for the points which they have made about considerations which should be borne in mind, and I will pass those on to my right hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) asked about the importance of medical research. The nuclear industry is concerned mainly with safety and health as a result of nuclear operations. The use of radio isotopes for treatment and the application of nuclear physics in medicine probably is outside the scope of this debate. As there are many other subjects awaiting debate, I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not launch into this sphere of discussion tonight.

AGRICULTURE (EGG IMPORTS)

6.58 a.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I am grateful for an opportunity to raise the subject of the import of eggs. At a time which marks the beginning of the farming day, it is relevant to be debating such a subject for a short time.
Imports of eggs are important to the egg producer, to the Egg Marketing Board and to the consumer. They are a matter of concern to the egg producer at the moment because his return is falling and he is facing hardship. That is particularly true of the medium-size specialist egg producer who does not have the tremendous advantage of scale enjoyed by some other producers, and who, equally, does not have the advantage of being able to carry what is hoped will be his short-term loss on eggs over other items and commodities produced on his farm.
It is a matter of concern to the Egg Marketing Board, because as imports come in and the price of eggs drops, production becomes increasingly uneconomic to certain producers, many of whom go out of production, and then in due course supply does not meet the demand.
Thirdly, it is important to the consumer, because if supplies are not adequate prices are bound to rise inordinately in due course, and this has implications for the cost of living, or, alternatively, imports are forced in to the disadvantage of the balance of payments, or both these things might occur.
It is normal that in January there is an over-supply of eggs on the domestic market. The demand for eggs drops after Christmas and the New Year, while supplies tend to increase with the longer days. The result is that prices drop, but the majority of producers accept this as part of the seasonal trade and take it in their stride, recognising the seasonal cut, and they look ahead in the knowledge that there will be an improvement in prices in due course.
But this year has been one of very special circumstances. First, the mild weather which we have enjoyed this winter has encouraged an early flush in home production. In January of last year the throughput of first-quality eggs was


1,578,000 boxes. In January of this year it was 1,753,000 boxes. In February 1966 it was 1,606,000 boxes, and in February of this year it was 1,718,000 boxes. I think that these few statistics illustrate what a sharp increase there has been in production in the early part of this year.
The mild weather which we enjoyed in this country was enjoyed in other countries, too, and stimulated production there, with the result that in January the Common Market put a levy on imports of 1s. 7d. per dozen, and 11d. for those countries in which minimum import prices had been adopted. Just as the raising of the beef import price into the Common Market last year affected United Kingdom beef producers, so the egg levy and the minimum import price have affected egg producers here.
In the circumstances of the Common Market levy countries like Poland, which are unsophisticated egg producers, but who have surpluses of their own, dumped eggs on the United Kingdom market which became their only outlet. The increase in imports into this country has been very marked in the first two months of the year, and again I would like to quote the relevant statistics. In January 1966, 67,000 boxes of eggs were imported into this country. In January of this year the figure was 93,000. In February 1966 the figure was 66,000, and in February of this year it was 81,000, so in both months there was a considerable increase on last year, with the result that the home market has been glutted not just by home produced eggs, but also by imported eggs, and the price to the producer for standard eggs fell from 3s. 6½d. prior to 7th January, to 1s. 9½d. on 26th February. The Egg Marketing Board has done its best to maintain prices by breaking out and replenishing its stock of egg products at a rate of about 50,000 or 60,000 boxes a week—about double the number broken out at the same period last year. But, in view of the high home production and imports, the Board has been fighting a losing battle.
Last week's Price Review appeared against this background and two paragraphs in it are relevant. Paragraph 10 says:
The Government are satisfied that the award is consistent with prices and incomes

policy and is essential to enable the industry to continue to make its vital contribution to the national economy through import saving.
I agree, but will egg producers be able to continue to save imports if their confidence is shattered as it has been recently and larger production becomes so uneconomical that many give it up?
Paragraph 37 of the White Paper on the Review reads:
The United Kingdom is virtually self-sufficient in eggs and the objective under the selective expansion programme is to meet any increase in demand. This is well within the technical capacity of the industry.
Again, I entirely agree. But can the industry meet the increase in demand if it is uneconomical to do so? It is misleading to say that the United Kingdom is virtually self-sufficient. In the past two years, we imported about two per cent. of our supplies, so there has been scope for a limited selective expansion.
I imagine that the Government recognise this, because they recently gave an investment grant for a one million bird unit in Scotland. How can this be justified, if they felt that there was already over-production? If they are encouraging such production growth, how can they justify their lack of concern about imports and the cut in the guaranteed price by ¾d. a dozen?
Before the Review, the Chairman of the Marketing Board said:
… the review is a long-term measure that affects the industry for a whole year. Confidence has been shaken and any cut in subsidy could have a disastrous effect on supplies this autumn. It could lead to the worst crisis in the board's history. If the Minister doesn't take appropriate action at the review, the responsibility will be on his shoulders. If he is so ignorant that he thinks that high production caused by mild weather is the same as overproduction, then God help us all.
We must all hope that that crisis will be avoided, but I fear at present that we may. If no action is taken to restore confidence, many egg producers are bound to give up. We will find ourselves short of eggs in the autumn and, consequently, we will have to import more eggs then, and that will have disadvantages for our balance of payments.
What can be done about the question of imports? The Egg Marketing Board put forward the suggestion that it should be allowed to export. It recently applied for a licence to export eggs, but I understand that its application was refused by


the Board of Trade because the granting of such a licence would be incompatible with our obligations under G.A.T.T. It is clear that the United Kingdom is the dumping ground of supplies from other countries. In a letter to me on this subject on 6th March, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary stated:
It would, of course, be contrary to our international obligations to ban any imports or to impose control on such imports or their prices. However, if the industry considers that the eggs are being dumped and are causing or threatening them with like injury, it is open to them to make an application to the Board of Trade for an anti-dumping order…
That would be under the 1947 Act, and the hon. Gentleman added that such an application would be considered on its merits. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary is aware that there is a considerable delay in the introduction of the necessary procedures and that before the antidumping regulations could be introduced the short-term problem, at any rate for this year, would be over. This illustrates yet again that the anti-dumping legislation is, in many respects, inadequate.
We must, therefore, now look for something new; and two courses are open to us. First, the Government could take steps to introduce minimum import prices. Secondly, the could negotiate to ensure that imports of eggs are phased so that they come in only when eggs are required here. If these two ideas were adopted there would be an assured home supply, a steady price, a healthy home industry, a renewal of confidence, expanding selectivity and an improvement in productivity and efficiency. Without these ideas, or something equivalent to them, I fear that the industry will be beset by crises and will become increasingly uneconomic, unable to modernise and will have little confidence in the future.
I appreciate that this whole problem of egg imports is not an easy matter to solve. It is causing great concern in the industry and I trust that the Minister will have something constructive to say in reply.

7.14 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) for having raised this subject. Although he painted a

somewhat gloomy picture, I trust it will be remembered that we in this country meet our total requirements to the extent of 98 per cent. Thus, 98 per cent. of all the shell eggs we consume are produced by our farmers. We are, therefore, talking about the additional 2 per cent.
My right hon. Friend answered a Question on 15th February on this subject, and he said that he did not consider that a case had been made out for any change in our policy on imported eggs. There is no doubt, as the hon. Gentleman conceded in his remarks, that the main factor affecting prices since the beginning of this year has been the seasonal rise in home production. It is usual for production to increase at this time, but the exceptionally mild weather this year has led to a greater increase than usual.
The weekly throughput of eggs through the packing stations averaged just under 400,000 boxes for the four weeks ended 24th December, 1966. Over the first eight weeks of this year, the average increased by nearly 10 per cent. to 435,000 boxes. At this level, it was also up about 7 per cent. compared with January, 1966, and about 6 per cent. compared with February, 1966. It is unfortunate that sales, on the other hand, were rather lower in January and February than during the corresponding months of 1966.
The figures I will give for shell egg imports differ a little from those given by the hon. Gentleman. During January, they amounted to about 95,000 boxes, about 3 per cent. of total supplies of eggs on the United Kingdom market. We have not got official figures for February yet, but according to the Board's provisional estimates they may amount to about 73,000 boxes. For 1967 as a whole, there is no reason to expect that the level of imports will differ much from the three previous years when they represented less than 2 per cent. of our total supplies.
The egg guarantee arrangements, however—and I wish the hon. Gentleman had said something about this aspect—recognise that an excess of imports at certain times of the year could have a disproportionate effect on market prices. They therefore include provision, subject to certain conditions, whereby additional Exchequer payments are made to the Board in any month when imports exceed the level taken as normal for the month


in question, and the Board's selling price for the month falls below a specified reference price.
A normal level of imports for this purpose has been determined for each month based on a total of 950,000 boxes for the year as a whole, but reflecting seasonal import variations.
The monthly reference prices have been derived from the indicator price for the year on similar principles, after allowing for seasonal price variations.
The broad effect of this system, which came into operation in 1963 when the revised egg guarantee arrangements were introduced, is that in any month when imports are in excess of the monthly norm, and the Board's average selling price for the month is below the reference price, then additional payments are made to the Board in respect of the excess imports. The payment is at the rate of 36s. per box of 360 eggs on the excess over the norm.
In January, and it appears in February also, imports exceeded the normal level—in other words, the quantity criterion was satisfied—but no compensation was payable to the Board because in both months the Board's average selling price has been above the appropriate reference prices. The House may be interested to hear that since the introduction of these arrangements in 1963, compensation for excess imports has been payable to the Board in seven months only. This year, owing to the widened gap between throughput and sales, the Board had to break out very large quantities of first quality eggs during January and February.
However, the reductions made by the Board in its selling prices towards the end of February have stimulated demand and the Board's sales on the shell egg market have been increasing in recent weeks. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad to hear that. It is something we are very glad to see.
Eggs represent very good value for money, and while the price is bound to be influenced by seasonal factors it is only right that the consumer should be able to enjoy the benefit of the present supply situation. The increase in sales on the shell egg market, coupled with a levelling off of throughput, has enabled

the Board to reduce the level of its breaking out significantly in recent weeks.
I should make it clear that the determination of first-hand selling prices for its eggs and of producer prices are matters for the Board, except that it has agreed with the Government that in determining the prices which it pays to producers it will, so far as is reasonably practicable, follow the pattern of its selling prices, having regard to subsidy payments made by the Government to the Board.
It is often alleged that the eggs that are coming in from abroad are dumped, and I should like to make the position clear on this. If the industry considers that imports are being dumped and that they are causing or threatening it with material injury, it can make an application to the Board of Trade under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1957. Any such application would be carefully considered on its merits.
As my right hon. Friend informed the House a few weeks ago, he had decided, after giving the closest consideration to the representations he had received, that he did not consider that a case had been made out for any change in the Government's import policy on eggs. Frankly, there has been nothing in recent weeks to warrant reconsideration of this conclusion.
We shall naturally continue to keep a close watch on the situation, but certainly on the evidence so far adduced we are still firmly of the view that no changes are called for in our present policy. But as my right hon. Friend made clear when he discussed this matter with the President of the National Farmers' Union, he would be willing to review this conclusion if evidence were produced that imports lay at the root of the trouble. I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance but, as he says, the whole question is difficult and this matter of increase in throughput and fall in sales makes it more difficult still. If circumstances justified it, I can assure him that we would reconsider the position. We still place great reliance on this industry to fulfil the job it has under the selective expansion programme. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman, perhaps not wittingly, got into a slight contradiction here because he said that people might be going out while talking at the same time of people investing another £1 million in the industry.
There is considerable confidence in the industry. I think that I have shown quite clearly that we have had this seasonal rise, which is much higher than normally takes place and which has created some difficulty, but I feel confident that throughout the year as a whole our imports will not exceed what they have been in recent years, and that is rather less than 2 per cent. of our total requirements of shell eggs.

HOVERCRAFT DEVELOPMENT

7.24 a.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: If this debate had taken place twelve hours ago, I am quite certain that the Parliamentary Secretary and I would have been much happier and it would not have been necessary for me to address my mind to this subject—I will not say late at night but in the early hours of the morning as the light is coming through the windows. We have both had to forgo our sleep.
This is an important subject, and this debate gives us an opportunity to review progress and report on the hovercraft, its development and trade. I shall refer to the work of Mr. Christopher Cockerell, the work of the N.R.D.C., Hovercraft Development Ltd. and the British Hovercraft Corporation. I shall refer to the original work of Saunders-Roe and, more recently, Westlands.
The whole question of the development of hovercraft and the air-cushioned vehicle, or ACV as it is sometimes called, for high speed transport on land on an inter-city basis, using a propeller or linear induction motor, or across oceans using sophisticated developments of the hovercraft already in production, and perhaps successful exploitation of the new sidewall hovercraft put forward by Hovermarine—all these catch the imagination. Will Britain exploit this great breakthrough to the full? Much of the success of that depends upon the right decisions in Government as well as the right decisions in industry.
Great Britain is undoubtedly in the lead in this field at the moment, and the original idea of Mr. C. S. Cockerell, who can be given very great credit for this invention, has been exploited by this country in a number of ways. I well remember the visit of Mr. Cockerell to

the House of Commons in the early days of his invention when he outlined his ideas to Conservative members at a time when there was a Conservative Government. We regretted the difference in February, 1966 with Hovercraft Developments Ltd, and I will refer to a recent article in the Financial Times by him. But much credit must be given to the previous Administration for the successes which have been achieved in the early 1960's and the strong support given by it to the N.R.D.C.
The hovercraft is a new method of transportation, whether over land, sea or swamp. It has civil and military applications, and Britain has a world lead. Our concern on this side of the House is that we in Westminster, in Whitehall and in Government, should ensure that we keep this lead.
Whatever may have happened in past years, success is now dependent upon the Ministry of Technology, through the N.R.D.C. and its subsidiary companies, and through the extension of the work of the National Physical Laboratory, and the Ministry of Technology has great responsibility for administering Government encouragement, drive and financial help to this new industry.
The Conservative Opposition have quite rightly asked questions from time to time as to the progress that is being made. We have been somewhat limited in the type of questions we have asked for a number of reasons. One is that exploitation of this form of transport must be left to those who have technical and commercial interests in this field, and in this connection the minimum rather than the maximum interference is required not only from Government but also from the Opposition at this time.
But are those with commercial interests being given the maximum help they deserve, and are they suffering the minimum of interference? Is Government direction being given with foresight and imagination? Is not the problem now one of development and application rather than of invention?
Secondly, our probing has been limited because we have not known officially what has been going on. Some of my hon. Friends have made visits to Hythe to see Hovercraft Development Ltd. They have been to factories where hovercraft are being built, but there is not


enough knowledge here of what is going on. The issues are complex and technologies are changing. Ministers, let alone the Opposition, cannot grasp the real potentialities and issues. They are very much dependent upon their advisers, and we on this side are very much dependent upon accurate technical reporting.
On Monday, 30th January, there was a comprehensive article by Michael Donne, the Financial Times air correspondent, on the development of the SRN-4, and this was very encouraging. The SRN-4 is a 160-ton vehicle which could carry cars, or up to 700 passengers. It is in an advanced state of preparation; it should go down the slipway on the Medina in September, and it should not be long before it is in service with Swedish Hoverlloyd, which is a subsidiary of Swedish American and Swedish Lloyd. It set a pattern which subsequently was followed by British Railways, but while British Railways may be experts in operating railway trains, their performance on the Southampton—Cherbourg—Le Havre run did not match that of Thorenson and one wonders whether they are the right organisation in this field of transport. British Railways have been late-corners, spurred on by Hoverlloyd, but however belated, their interest is welcome.
We learn that companies such as Hovertravel, Hoverlloyd and British Rail Hovercraft and other groups are all contributing to the current total of more than 20,000 hours of running and 600,000 passengers carried. It is optimistically expected that 1 million passengers will have been carried by the end of 1967. The industrial structure has been changing as well. Total investment in hovercraft construction is of the order of £10 million, in the British Hovercraft Corporation £5 million, consisting of Westlands 65 per cent., Vickers 25 per cent., backed by N.R.D.C. with 10 per cent. This has a 20 per cent. interest in the Britten Norman Hovercraft group. This was announced by the Minister of Technology, then the right hon. Member for Nuneaton, on 3rd March, 1966. The creation of a larger unit is to be welcomed. It has been in operation for some time now and the country will look forward to progress reports on how

things are going. There is a production line of 40 craft on order. The only other production line is that of Bell-Aerosystems in the United States of America.
There are other technical developments which are being circulated in the technical Press and we are being informed of them. In Engineering on 3rd March there was a comprehensive study of the sidewall hovercraft design by Hovermarine. It spoke in terms of 45 knots and a weight of 125 tons and the craft would go through three-foot waves at that speed. It is confined to operation in water. It is a natural development of the Denny type hoverbus in which I and other hon. Members had the privilege to ride up the Thames some years ago.
Hovercraft Development Ltd., the N.R.D.C., subsidiary has granted Hover-marine a licence to develop this kind of vehicle. The first to be developed will be a 60 passenger craft and that prototype is under construction by Halmatic. Can the Minister confirm that my information is correct and to what extent is there Government support for this project?
I come to a subject of much greater interest, the use of hovercraft as a means of speedy inter-city transport. Here we are talking of 200 m.p.h. or 250 m.p.h. although, judged by French experiments, it is possible to go at 280 m.p.h. or slightly faster. There were some interesting technical articles about the Bertin Aerotrain which at Breuguets Villacoublay works for preliminary testing.
This was reported in the Helicopter and Hovercraft World in February, 1966. The New Scientist, on 5th January, 1967, had a very good article about Aerotrains for commuters by Mr. Kahn. This prompted some interest on the opposition back benches and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) asked the Minister
of Technology what steps he is taking with a view to constructing a full-scale prototype of a hover train incorporating linear induction and through whose agency this will be promoted.
My hon. Friend was right when he said in a supplementary question:
Bearing in mind the very big impact which, if its potentialities are realised, it could have on the investment programmes of road, rail


and air, will he ensure that no time is wasted in deciding to go ahead with a full-scale prototype?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 252.]
If the hovertrain is technically possible for fast inter-city transport, how can it best be developed? There are many variables which challenge the imagination. Are the economics being studied? Has there been a study of the application of this high speed craft, whether it be on a hovercraft principle or on a similar principle? What routes should be made available for it? Have any feasibility studies been made using existing British Rail routes or routes alongside existing motorways?
When driving up the M.1 recently, I looked at the centre lane and the side to find out whether I could justify such construction in the centre or on either side of the motorway. There are difficulties, but this would provide a route which is not in the hands of British Rail. Should the operators of this new form of transport be British Rail or British Rail with some other body providing an alternative service? These are things about which the House and the Government should think.
There is some useful knowledge to be gained from the Bertin experiments. Nearly four miles of track have been laid. The prototype is a six-seater, although I believe that the production type will be a 70 to 80-seater. The track is 5 ft. 11 in. wide overall of and "T" section. The "T" section is 1 ft. 10 in. high and laid in 21 ft. sections.
Reports about the experiments stimulate the imagination. An article in the Helicopter and Hovercraft World said:
The performance of the Aerotrain places it in the category between conventional modes of surface travel and the fixed wing aircraft. Travelling between large towns up to 300 miles apart it is claimed to be superior to all other forms of transportation although no direct comparison with a scheduled helicopter system appears to have been made so far. Over distances greater than 300 miles it would still be competitive with fixed wing air transport since there would be no loss of time in travel between city centres and airports.
Today, in France, the 250-mile journey from Paris to Lyon by the fastest train The Mistral' takes 4 hours. An Aerotrain operating over the same route would take between 1 hour 10 minutes and 1 hour 30 minutes.
In the New Scientist of 5th January, 1967, it is stated that the French are going ahead with this development if

it does not exceed a centime per kilometre per passenger seat. Referring to a commuter service between New Orleans and Paris, it states that passengers would be swept along in the aerotrain at several hundred miles an hour and cover such long distances in as little as 15 minutes.
Meanwhile, the article concludes, the British hovercraft is in an administrative muddle and dependent on Hovercraft Development Ltd. at Hythe. It ends by stating:
One wonders to what extent we are making progress in this field.
Dr. Cockerell, writing about the future of Hovercraft in The Financial Times on 1st June, 1966, said
The danger, therefore, is that the Ministry of Technology and the National Research Development Corporation may feel content with what they have achieved, and will now sit back throwing financial feed to BHC and leaving it at that, instead of deliberately setting out to broaden the base of the industry, so that in some five years' time there are the makings of three new embryo 'BHCs', each with its own design team and its own independent policy.
Without such action Britain will be buying American designs and American engines inside 10 years and will once again have failed at the exploitation stage of a new industry. Likewise, British Rail and other operators will have to buy BHC hovercraft or buy foreign hovercraft,…
Thus we have a word of warning that complacency is not justified.
The purpose of the debate is to elicit information. The various factors must be borne in mind. First, British Railways is a large organisation and the work they have done on bringing in diesel trains and on electrification is praiseworthy and to their credit, but they have proved that they have lacked some imagination and commercial expertise on the Southampton—Cherbourg service. Perhaps they can do only one thing well. Perhaps this is a sideline which they neglected and that is why experts in other fields have come in and do the job better.
We must learn whether British Railways are good operators of the Channel service, which is where the lead is being taken by Hoverlloyd. Are British Railways necessarily the best people to be given the monopoly of operating this new fast 250 m.p.h. inter-city type of transport when suitably developed technically.
In another connection I was talking about spray steel making and I pointed out that it was not the big companies which achieved the break-through but a small firm, Millom Hematite & Iron Ore. In an article I said this:
If the stage coach had been nationalised, we would never have had railways.
This was in connection with spray steel making. It is equally logical to ask this question, which some people might ask in 50 years' time: because British Railways were nationalised, is that why Britain never had the hovertrain? It is not a question of a nationalised industry doing it, but the railways have expertise in running trains on conventional track. Are they the best organisation to go into this new form of transport? I suppose that in many ways it is as logical for British Railways to go into developing hovertrains as it would have been for them to go into the airline business. It is vital that the Government should give some thought to the administrative arrangements which would have to be faced in developing this inter-city travel, whether by hovertrain or some similar development.
There was also the announcement on 24th January, which we on this side welcomed. The Minister circulated information which contained the statement that a section of the separate hovercraft unit would be set up by the National Phyhical Laboratory. The words were:
The Hovercraft Technical Group at Hythe of Hovercraft Development Ltd., a subsidiary body of the National Research Development Corporation, will come under the control of a separate Hovercraft Unit to be set up by the National Physical Laboratory."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1967; Vol. 729, c. 1248.]
We asked questions at that time.
I have spoken to persons associated with hovercraft. They welcome the fact that there is this Hovercraft Technical Group and that it will have better facilities for theoretical and applied study to learn more about the unknown of this type of travel. They welcome a more systematic acadamic and theoretical approach to scientific problems.
The French have also shown initiative in going further and achieving practical development, namely, the Bertin aerotrain. There is a need to install special

track to carry out trials. In France this has been done at a cost of about £200,000.
We come back to the Question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely on 28th February and which has prompted this debate:
what steps
is the Minister
taking with a view to constructing a full-scale prototype of a hovertrain…
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) asked this supplementary question:
That is not a satisfactory answer. Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that the National Physical Laboratory has the resources or the authority to take this development through the pilot stage which is now extremely urgent? Will he undertake to report to the House within the next few months, or suffer severe censure?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 252.]
We want an elaboration of that interchange. This is a development which I believe must be done by an industrial organisation, and who better than the British Hovercraft Corporation, Ltd.? But this leads me to certain conclusions. I imagine that the Government will develop hovertrains in their own way. Therefore, I ask them to differentiate between scientific investigation, the pursuit of knowledge—including pure research which could most suitably be carried out by the National Physical Laboratory—and development.
I would next urge the Government to consider whether there ought not to be a research and development contract placed with a company; and, as I have said, who better than the British Hovercraft Corporation? If they are appalled by the cost, then why not make this a joint Anglo-French venture with the French SECA—the Societe 1'Exploitation et de Construction Aeronautique?
Next, I urge the Government to give some thought to the kind of organisation which would be best for exploiting successful developments and a technological break-through in this field. Events of the past seven or eight years have clearly shown that hovercraft development has depended on a working arrangement between the Government, the NRDC, and British Industry. Sir Eric Mensforth, a constituent of mine, and chairman of Westland, was quick to take up hovercraft with Saunders Roe when Westland took


over that organisation, and the Westland Company is achieving considerable breakthroughs.
It is also encouraging to note that the patent field is well covered, and it is largely due to his initiative that we are about to have a break-through in marine propulsion. Whatever happens, we shall have the SRN 4 launching this summer. It will have its operating trials next year, and there are ambitious development projects for 300, 400 and even 4,000 ton ocean freighters. This is a success story which the nation will follow with interest. I believe we are on the verge of an ambitious break-through in fast ocean transportation.
There is another aspect of this type of transport. We hear much now about the Channel tunnel, but it will be of little advantage to the manufacturers of the North. A hover freighter from the Humber and the East Coast ports to the continent, and especially if consisting of the larger vehicles, would have the opportunity for taking produce quickly from manufacturer to user across the North Sea. This would have advantage over the tunnel when that is built. This sea-freighter idea would be watched with interest by manufacturers in the North and Midlands.
There is the development project for a hoverport at Ramsgate—at Rich-borough or Pegwell. This has been raised with me by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). Has authority been given for this work to go ahead, because the SRN 4 will soon be in operation. Swedish Lloyd are a progressive company and I hope the Minister will give this consideration.
This has been the first opportunity in this Parliament to raise the issue of hovercraft and hovertrains. Firstly I ask the Minister to remember that private enterprise has an important role to play. Secondly, I ask him to fill in the gaps in our knowledge about what his Ministry is doing. Thirdly, I remind him that we in the Opposition are not happy about the National Physical Laboratory being a suitable organisation for sponsoring practical development. We think that another organisation should be set up to develop, manufacture, and operate the hovertrain. Fourthly, I ask him to give urgent attention to the development of the

hovertrain as a means of fast inter-city transport.

7.50 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Jeremy Bray): The hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) has raised a fascinating and exciting topic to which the Government have given support and which holds great promise for the future. It is still a development field in which a tremendous lot of work is needed. I would not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman about the distinction between research and development. The work being done is intensely practical and applied. Hitherto, the responsibility for it in the defence and civil fields has been divided, and this has not made for easy relations with the industry or for rapid progress. But now, under the new Ministry of Technology, which is in charge of the whole programme, there is a unified programme in the civil and defence fields.
On the exploitation side, clearly, while technical progress is developing, the efficiency in application will mean that particular applications will become economic as efficiency is increased. It is fair to say that the hovercraft salesmen are in touch with just about every conceivable part of the world. Whenever an enterprising Member of Parliament or trade commissioner sends back reports of a possible hovercraft sale, in every case it turns out that a hovercraft salesman has been there first to explore the ground.
The work of Hovercraft Development Ltd. on the side-wall craft has led to support and licensing for Hover Marine, and full support is being given in the development of its 30 and 60 seater craft.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the importance of the hovertrain development. I am not too scared by his reference to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) and his interest in this matter, because he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade when it was in charge of the National Research Development Corporation and I, as an Opposition Member, was trying in vain to stir up some interest in that Department in the exciting possibilities of the hover-train and finding it difficult for an hon. Member to get over inter-departmental communication problems. Happily, that situation no longer exists. We have a


Clear responsibility, and work is proceeding.
The next stage in the hovertrain development is under very active consideration. Those who have visited Hythe, as I know hon. Members on both sides have done, are aware of the work done there on the static rig, on models, wind tunnel tests, computer simulation studies, and so on. In due course, the work will reach a stage when a test track is needed for a large man-carrying vehicle to travel at very high speeds. It is possible to go up to 180 miles an hour on steel wheels on steel rails. Hover-trains come into their own only at speeds considerably in excess of 180 miles an hour. When travelling at that speed, the propulsion system becomes a problem. The propeller is noisy and relatively inefficient. The natural means of propulsion at this speed is the linear induction motor. Incidentally, the same applies to rail vehicles with steel wheels travelling on steel rails.
We are interested in and following closely what the French are doing. We are not persuaded that we are losing any time by thoroughly preparing the ground by carrying out simulation studies and smaller scale work. It is possible to take different views on questions like skirts and pads and technical matters relating to the hover train. We are not entirely persuaded that expenditure on the scale the French have undertaken is adequate by an order of magnitude. We think that the kind of effort we have put in is essential to a technically efficient, safe and efficient hover train system. I am sure that as the months and years go by it will become apparent that Britain has in no sense lost the lead in this.
It is an exciting area, but even the most exciting areas should not occupy the House's attention for very long at this time of the morning.

YOUTH SERVICES

7.56 a.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I make no apology for moving from a very important national subject to one of what I might loosely call a more homely nature. I am much obliged to the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science for being courteous enough to be in his place at eight o'clock in the morning for our brief discussion on the youth services.
I think I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) say that there had been no opportunity in this Parliament to discuss the subject he raised. That is also true of the whole subject of education. It is very massive, and there are so many claims on the time of the Secretary of State and those who work under him that I am sure that the Under-Secretary will agree that it is very difficult to find time for a discussion on the youth services. Yet they are an important part of the Department's work. I am sure that he will welcome an opportunity to say something about progress being made.
I do not propose to raise individual and detailed matters. If I refer to a project here and there I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to deal with them in detail. That is not the debate's purpose. I want to put before him one or two of the kind of problems affecting those like him and me who are interested in the subject.
I start with one which at first sight appears to have no relevance to the matter in hand, but is in fact very close to it, although he has no Ministerial responsibility for it. That is the effect of the Selective Employment Tax. The hon. Gentleman will be tempted to reply that I am well and truly off beam, because voluntary organisations, being charities, are exempt from that tax. But does he realise that the imposition of the tax on small charitable bodies is hard? If he does, will be make representations to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the short time available?
One first pays the tax and then claims repayment. For example, the organisation with which I am connected does not run large balances of money out of which to draw those sums, which are


large in our terms, and then obtain repayment of the tax. It was largely because of pressure from this side of the House that the Chancellor exempted charities from S.E.T. If he could find a method of avoiding the need for the payment, even though it is repaid later, it would be a great help.
I say with great regret that the tax's effect is to make us all into criminals in the youth service. In the small boys' club of which I am chairman, we have, in common with so many other clubs of a similar nature, a wonderful "lady what does". Until the tax came into force she came 10 hours a week to clean those youth service premises. If she went on doing that we should have had to pay full S.E.T. for her. It has been decided that she need only do eight hours a week, but in consideration of her long and faithful service her rate of salary has been increased.
I felt much ashamed as we concocted this innocent little plan to save a worthwhile club a proportionately substantial sum of money a year in order legally to get round the application of the S.E.T. I do not think it is a very good introduction for young people into the workings of our tax system when they have to take part in making decisions of this kind. If the hon. Gentleman feels that he could persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget to exempt such bodies completely from the application of the tax it would be much appreciated.
The main question now is whether the hon. Gentleman will give a report on the impetus set originally by the Albemarle Report. I remember the interest and excitement in 1960 when the Report was published and the Youth Service Advisory Council was set up. I had a small attachment to the hon. Gentleman's Department at the time and I remember the immense sense of achievement and interest of the early 1960s. It would be helpful if he could give a progress report for the last two years, for example.
This really stems from the public announcement that the hon. Gentleman was going to have a review committee which would go into the progress of the Youth Service, particularly as far as Ministerial responsibility was concerned.

That seems to have disappeared somewhat. We do not seem to have heard about it lately. I see that the hon. Gentleman makes a rude face at me. This is the opportunity for him to bring the position more fully into the open. Those working in the Youth Service do not seem to have heard a great deal of what the Committee has been up to and it would help if he could explain how he feels that progress is being made and whether the impetus is being maintained.
The importance of the Albemarle Report was that for the first time the country began to appreciate on a worthwhile scale the needs in youth work and became corporately interested and concerned in making progress in this work.
There is a sense of anxiety about building projects which the hon. Gentleman's Department is able to authorise at present. I have the figures with me. For 1964–65, the figure was £4·5 million for the Youth Service building programme, rising in 1965–66 to £6·4 million. Sadly, in 1966–67, there is a dip to £4·5 million, with £4·8 million in 1967–68. Local education authority expenditure is, admittedly, at over £10 million in this work, but for 1967–68 and 1968–69 the estimates have been reduced for rate support grant purposes. This is bound to affect the Youth Service considerably. There is great anxiety on the project side. If he could offer some hope for the future it would be greatly appreciated.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): Would the hon. Gentleman kindly tell the House the source of the figures he gives, since the maximum height of the building programme is, according to my recollection, much higher than anything we have ever reached?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I have had to copy these figures from the statistics. Obviously I must check them if the hon. Gentleman questions them. I am talking about the Youth Service Building Programme, and I have read them as being, for 1964–65, 4·5, for 1965–66, 6·4, for 1966–67, 4·5, and for 1967–68, 4·8.

Mr. Howell: It is with the 6·4 million that I hesitate to agree, at the moment.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I do not intend to mislead the hon. Gentleman, or the House. As a result of his intervention, I


shall check that figure. I think that I have it right, but the hon. Gentleman has questioned it and I want to be certain.
I turn now to three individual matters. Of all the various new developments, one of the more interesting is what is called the Weekender Project. The House will recall that considerable public criticism has been directed at the activities of what is a very small number of young people at weekend resorts, particularly in the summer months, and the misbehaviour of a very small percentage of them.
In that connection, I want to give a word of warning to the hon. Gentleman. It is important for hon. Members generally to be careful not to brand an entire group of young people because of the activities of a select few. It is easy to fall into that trap in the case of the present difficulties at the London School of Economics, and it is equally easy when referring to the activities of a very small number of young people who go down to the coastal resorts at weekends.
I have no personal connection with the National Association of Youth Clubs, but its new project is a very interesting one. I understand that it is backed by the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust. No doubt the N.A.Y.C. has run into difficulty in organising the project. There are the inevitable anxieties of the local areas about whether the specific provision of adventure bases for young people will not entice into their seaside areas very undesirable youth. Though there have been teething troubles, the general concensus seems to be that the project is a good one and is meeting a useful need.
It points also to an aspect of which all who have had dealings with this kind of project are conscious, namely, the yearning of so many young people to get their teeth into something challenging. We live in almost too "comfortable" a world, and they yearn to do something which is challenging and demanding. I am sure that that accounts for the spread of so many of these kinds of projects.
The second matter which I raise is to ask whether the hon. Gentleman has any views to express about the way in which youth wings of schools are working out. This again is one of the more interesting developments. Hon. Members on both

sides have been conscious that, in the past, we as taxpayers have provided enormous sums of money for school buildings which, taking the year as a whole or the day as a whole, are comparatively unproductive when looked at exclusively in financial terms.
One of the appalling problems is that immediately young people leave school the one building to which they do not want to return is the school building. They are grown up and they want to show their complete independence from that which they have come. A number of authorities have been building schools specifically designed to cope with the problem. For example, I have one building in my constituency—and I am sure that there are innumerable examples in other areas—which has a separate entrance for adults, with coffee bar facilities, which can be used by both adults and young people in the evenings.
I shall be very interested to hear whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that this concept is proving itself. I am told that there is one authority—which I shall not name because I am not certain of my authority in this—which is giving up the idea because it is finding that it does not work. I shall be surprised if this is so, and I shall be interested to hear whether the hon. Gentleman, drawing on the experience of his Department, is able to say whether an experiment of this kind, which I should have thought was a good thing, was working out. I am sure that we owe it to the taxpayers to make the fullest possible use of the immense investment which, quite rightly, we are putting into school building.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say something about the training of leaders for voluntary youth organisations, and indeed statutory ones, too. I think that one of the most important changes arising out of the Albemarle Report was the establishment of a career structure and a proper salary scale for youth leaders. When I look back to the period prior to the establishment of the salary scale, I do so with some shame, because I think of the innumerable men and women who have given years of their lives to this work on a salary scale which was absolutely derisory measured in terms of the value of money in those days. It took us as a nation a long time to get some kind


of order into their career prospects, but we now have this, and it would be very helpful to know how the hon. Gentleman views the work of the Leicester Training College, for example, how he sees its future, and whether he feels that it is meeting at least part of the immense need.
It has been represented to me that we ought to be moving on now to a two-year full-time training course, and I shall be glad to know whether the Department is considering this.
There is, I gather, some anxiety at the moment that authorities are having to manufacture "posts of responsibility", as they would be called in the education world, to cope with the problem of providing additional incentives to entice youth leaders to come to their areas. This seems to me to be an unfortunate development. It must be stressed very strongly that there is a grave shortage of youth leaders, and I do so now because one of the objectives of this short debate is to draw attention to the need in this sphere of activity, and it may be that by the very fact that the House is discussing it we shall draw it to the attention of some who might otherwise not have intended to take up this work.
Lastly, I want to stress most strongly my personal belief—not an exclusive belief at all—in the voluntary youth organisations. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that there is a feeling about—I think it is unjustified—that the bias of the Department is now weighted quite overwhelmingly against the voluntary youth organisations. I repeat that I do not believe that this is a fair belief, but I have here—and I take this merely as an example—the building programme for the youth service for the Inner London Authority which has been approved for the financial year which is about to start. It contains only one boys' club project in an area—and I am talking about the I.L.E.A. area—in which there are a number of projects ready with sponsors if they could be included in the programme. Local programmes approved by the hon. Gentleman's Department should be examined to make certain that there is no bias. There is a wealth of goodwill and generosity in the voluntary youth organisation, but if some of these projects are not incorporated in the pro-

grammes, there is a danger that the source of this generosity will dry up. The thumbprint of the hon. Gentleman's Department is necessary. Very often, a contribution of grant aid is an essential prerequisite to getting a project off the ground. This is an important matter, on which I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make a progress report to the House.

8.16 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: One important general problem is that of the hiatus between the enthusiastic boy or girl leaving school and what he or she finds in the outside world in respect of sport. What continuity of sport facilities can be provided for the school leaver? The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) said that many do not want to return to school once they have left, but is this any longer true? The atmosphere of schools has improved beyond recognition in the last ten years, and I catch myself wondering whether there are the same objections to returning to the familiar buildings.
It will be to our advantage financially and in terms of resources if the facilities can be used at an optimum rate rather than under-used. Government policy is to make as much use as possible of school buildings for youth purposes. How much has been achieved? And, cannot the schools' athletics championships be extended to cover those who have recently left school? These are as difficult to organise, in England if not in Scotland, as the Olympic Games. It would be remiss not to pay tribute to the schoolteachers who give up many hours—often unsung—to do this.
What is my hon. Friend's view of full-time secretaries for the schools' athletics associations, and how much of the necessary, though mundane, secretarial assistance have the Government provided? To what extent can the activities of school physical education teachers be integrated with the activities of the A.A.A.? I drew attention in Adjournment debates in 1963 and 1964 to the associated question of national coaches for schools. We are asking for a smooth transition from school to club to try to overcome the hiatus.
On the subject of the Byers Committee, does my hon. Friend think that there is


a case for the registration of young athletes? Should they—particularly those between 15 and 18—pay a fee? There is much to be said for even this nominal registration, and, even if only a small sum, a fee should be paid for those between 15 and 18. What is the Government's undertaking, if any, to the Byers Committee?
The House should be concerned about the whole question of national coaches because I think I am right in saying that only one person in 15 to take the national coaching course goes on in activities in the coaching sphere.
Because of the lateness of the hour, I will deal briefly with the question of the Amateur Athletic Association. There is a strong feeling that there is need for a United Kingdom A.A.A. and certainly the rivalry between the north and south, the midlands and Wales, has reached an undesirable pitch. The Minister will be aware of the great discontent that exists among many athletes over the way in which they are governed and especially at the idea of a self-electing body. One athlete went so far the other day as to call it a "self-electing breed". Does the Minister have any thoughts on the present state of athletics and the attitude of the athletes towards the way in which they are run, so to speak? If so, what does he intend to do about it? What is the Government's attitude, if it is proper to have an attitude?
Athletics in Britain must be grateful to our great newspapers—the Daily Express, the News of the World and others—which sponsor and run athletics tournaments. But for these newspapers I suspect that, in present circumstances, few tournaments would be held. At the same time, however, athletes are worried about the sponsorship of many events and I hope that my hon. Friend is looking into the whole question of sponsorship.
What lessons have been learnt from the sad circumstances in which Geoff Dyson, after 13 years, left for abroad in 1960, and has my hon. Friend any comment to make about the whole question of the conflict between coaching and the administration? Does he consider that the Government should do anything about this and, if so, what?
The Minister might also look into the question of the fees that are produced from the televising of athletic events. Is he satisfied that there is sufficient competition between the B.B.C. and I.T.V., remembering that even £3,000 or £4,000 is a valuable sum at a time when sport is in its present financial state, on the verge of bankruptcy? Could not more be done to encourage competition between the major television networks with a view to producing more money? In this connection, has my hon. Friend any views about the financial contribution to the women's A.A.A. and whether there should be more integration between the men's and women's A.A.A.?
In youth work much depends on the availability of facilities after four o'clock in the afternoon and particularly late at night. The question of floodlighting and how it should be financed has been raised, as has the question of all-weather surfaces. Although I have not been dogmatic about the other subjects I have mentioned, I am about this one. All-weather surfaces provide the one certain way of extending these facilities. Although the capital cost of providing all-weather surfaces is, on average, three times greater than making orthodox surfaces, it is a worth-while investment because these surfaces are long lasting and provide facilities throughout the year. Grass pitches at this time of the year are too often reduced to mud and slush and are completely unplayable. The sort of surfaces which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and I saw at Inverclyde are greatly to be encouraged because they are an example of what can be done in this country.
I would like to ask about the recommendations of the Sports Council for multi-purpose indoor sports centres, which are needed not only in the large towns and cities, but in many small communities. My hon. Friend might follow the recommedation of the Sports Council and investigate the conversion of small sports halls. My question arises from the Sports Council Report, page 15, paragraph 35:
There are certain large-scale facilities, having a regional purpose, which by their nature will require the joint support of several authorities, e.g. The Broads. Lee Valley, Poles-worth and Aintree. The Sports Council and Regional Sports Councils are most interested in the development of such regional projects, but as the law stands at present, there are difficulties over the provision of finance from


government sources towards schemes initiated by local authorities.'
This is quite clearly a matter for legislation, and I ask my hon. Friend: does he, in the foreseeable future, see any possibility of bringing in this kind of legislation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Member cannot ask for legislation on this debate.

Mr. Dalyell: May I ask my hon. Friend what he is doing to promote the success of the Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh in 1970. Many of us in central Scotland are extremely worried about what we read in the Press and hear about the athletics venue. Edinburgh Corporation have done a good job already in preparing for swimming events. We are determined that Scotland shall make a success of the games, and we are disturbed when three years before the Games we read conflicting reports that no decision has been made about the site for the athletics.
My hon. Friend might use this opportunity to say something about the preparation for the Olympic Games on which he has done a great deal of work. I hope that recreation, which has hitherto had rather a low place in the Government's priorities, will find a rather brighter place in the financial sun, and I wish my hon. Friend good fortune in his deliberations with the Treasury.

8.28 a.m.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: I welcome the opportunity to pay a tribute to the thousands who serve youth. Because youth services mean so much to them, some volunteers spend so much time doing this work that it is almost a full-time occupation. We are specially well served in this respect in Liverpool, and I pay tribute to these people. One should also remember those volunteers who have made it possible in so many of these places to build youth clubs. We have been very fortunate in Liverpool and I should like these people to know that they do not go unrecognised in this House.
I would not say that what one wanted from the Albemarle Report has been accomplished. It went forth with a blare of trumpets and it was thought that all had been solved, but anyone who thinks

that the youth services do not resemble what they were before Albemarle deludes himself. There have been tremendous steps, but work has been held back by lack of finance. This is the main reason why we have not made the progress we hoped for when Albemarle was published.
Have our youth services the right objective? What is their purpose? One of their side purposes is to keep people out of trouble, or help to do so, but that is not their main purpose. The type of person who gets into the criminal courts is not the type who normally goes into a youth club, and it is that fact that worries me. We are spending considerable amounts of money yet do not seem to be touching the fringe of this class of people whom the youth clubs should primarily be serving.
One possible explanation for this state of affairs is that we still cannot devote money to clubs to cater for those of under school leaving age, but statistics show that more people land themselves in the criminal court in the 14-year-old group than in any other. If we are to make any impact on this problem at all we must get these people before they get to 14 or 15. It is too late once they have landed themselves in the criminal court. But the facilities are not there.
I know that many local authorities get round this difficult, but I am certain that it takes a good deal of ingenuity to get funds for organisations that cater for those who are under the school leaving age. I ask my hon. Friend to see whether it is not possible to devote money to those of even 12 years, and 13 and 14, so that we might be able to make some impact on them before they start landing themselves into trouble.
The other type of people who concern me are those who, whatever facilities may be provided, will not be found in clubs—we refer to them as the unclubbables. A tremendous amount of research has gone into this side of the problem, and whole volumes have been written about it. In one book I read of a worker who spent a whole year mixing with these people, but at the end of the year I do not think he could honestly say that one person had been got into the club, or was one iota better than he was at the beginning of the year. It is a terrible problem.
There is a ray of hope. From my experience of the younger people, I believe that basically they have still the same characteristics that we in our generation always hoped we had. As the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) said, if there is a sufficient challenge thrown out to people they will react to it. It is easy for a generation brought up in the excitement of war to decry those living in a peace-time society. Many of us had the opportunity of working off our enthusiasm legitimately working for our country, and we should bear that in mind when we find ourselves being unduly critical of those who do things they ought not to do. Many of them have done things that have landed them in the criminal court just because of a lack of outlet. These people want to prove themselves, just as everyone does.
Just for a moment I must turn to one of my pet hobby horses—the cutting down of the Territorial Army. The result of that reduction will be that there will be fewer facilities for these people, and the problem will not improve, but will get worse, for that very reason.
Should we not consider making a new approach in an attempt to get through to these people. All they are trying to do is to prove themselves. There should be many more weekend facilities for adventure courses. These people will respond to that sort of thing, when they think it cissy to sit in a club. Many local authorities are opening these youth adventure centres in places like Wales. With all respect, I suggest that if my hon. Friend paid more attention to such centres and provided more facilities for them, we might have a break-through.
We have opened several youth wings in Liverpool, but one always comes up against the difficulty that it is somebody's school and the headmaster does not like to think that when he goes home at tea-time others are coming into the school and are using the gym, perhaps even allowing people to run about without shoes or plimsolls. That is one of the difficulties. I believe that educational facilities should be used to the maximum, and they are certainly not being used to the maximum at present.
I can understand the arguments about school playing fields being over-used. There is a limit to the amount of use that can be made of playing fields without involving one in tremendous expense. But I was interested in the point made about all-weather surfaces and floodlighting. I think that we in Liverpool have got more value out of hard all-weather surfaces and floodlighting per £1 spent than anything else. Young people can always come in and kick a ball about on an all-weather surface.
I conclude by saying that there is a tremendous amount of work still to be done on the youth services At the moment we are only touching the fringe of what can be done. Anything spent on the youth services saves money out of all proportion later on, because the facilities provided enable people to use their energies for proper purposes; and if we do not do that there is only one alternative, and who can blame them?

8.37 a.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: I do not want to detain the House very long, but two of my hon. Friends this morning have referred to the need for premises and there have been references to the Territorial Army. I am certain that one of the things the Minister should be looking at is the use of former Territorial Army premises for youth activities. It would be a wonderful purpose to which these centres could be put.
The main emphasis of my remarks is to remind the House that it is impossible at this juncture to talk of youth without referring to the revolutionary change in emphasis from service to youth to service by youth which has been taking place in recent years. We have all heard of the great upsurge in interest, not limited to this country, whereby young people, given the opportunity, want to seize the chance of playing a full and positive part in social service to the community. Sometimes the more dramatic work in the developing countries for a small, select and fortunate body of young people, able to go out for one or two years, tends to overshadow and push to one side the equally interesting work going on in this country.
I had the good fortune to work professionally for more than seven years with


one of the organisations involved, International Voluntary Service, and I witnessed during those seven years the increasing number—up to the point of thousands of young people—who every weekend are going out to do jobs in their local neighbourhood, or who in their school holidays or in their holidays from work undertake voluntary services. But International Voluntary Service is only one of many such organisations. There is Community Service Volunteers, Task Force, Toc H, and one could go on. There are also countless organisations operating purely at local level and inspired purely by local initiative.
I think it would be relevant to give some illustrations of the sort of work being done, either at weekends or perhaps in the summer holidays. For example, young people come together in a particular city and go out in groups to decorate the homes of elderly or handicapped people. Or in their holidays, some may go to a mental hospital which is short of staff, and perhaps work with the patients to build improved sporting facilities and mix with the patients. Quite as important as any practical services rendered will be the psychological contribution which they make to this institution in bridging the gap between the separate life of the inmates and the world outside.
Some of the friendships and changes in atmosphere which have been wrought by this kind of project cannot be praised too highly. One finds young people staffing holiday centres for the elderly. There is nothing better than for old people to go to the seaside or the country and be looked after by young people sharing their lives, providing concerts in the evenings, dressing them, feeding them and taking them on excursions. In a more dramatic setting, one also finds young volunteers going to remote rural districts of Scotland and working on projects which otherwise would not be economically possible, providing water supply schemes and even electricity supply schemes in the Shetlands for small isolated communities.
Only one thing has held back even greater development of this dramatic, exciting work. That is shortage of money. The Department of Education and Science has understood the value of this new development and wants to find every means of assisting it. I counsel the Minis-

ter to be extremely careful that in providing this assistance he does not allow the Department's new-found interest to misfire. We must question what the objectives of community service by young people exactly are. Is the idea simply to keep them off the streets? That is a completely negative concept which misses the whole opportunity. Is it on the other hand a new form of social education for those participating? If we are to recognise its full value we will surely see it as a unique form of education for those participating.
We must be careful to bring the operation to the point where it is not dealing only with the periphery of social problems but where all relevant Ministries, Government Departments and non-statutory bodies which have suitable opportunities to offer consider what is the main stream of activity in which they can involve young people. For example, the new Highland Development Board, one hopes, would plan from its earliest days to involve young people in projects which could not otherwise be financed. One hopes that the Home Office will give high priority to seeing how it can help to bring about racial reconciliation through the practical work of young people where there is racial tension.
There must be variety and a large number of differing organisations in order to enable young people to feel personally identified with the operation in which they are involved. It would be extremely sad if there were a pitfall which led to paralysis of this new development in the same way as we have seen paralysis of so much of one traditional youth service through institutionalisation. We must have both small local sensitive units and also variety at one national level. If this work is to succeed it will depend on the good will and active support of a large number of people at all key points in society. If we are to give the work the boost it deserves, one of the things which the Minister and the Department must do at an early stage is to call an absolutely representative round table conference to which all those affected and involved can come to analyse how far the operation has gone, discuss how much further it can now go and ways in which all concerned can co-operate more effectively with increased governmental support. I want to refer briefly to the international aspects of this activity.
We are pleased to note that we have a Government devoted to the principle of promoting international understanding. There is no better way of promoting international understanding among young people than to get them side by side on practical projects of service to the community of the kind I have described. I do not want to be sentimental, but I will tell the House of something I witnessed while I was working with International Voluntary Service. The Parliamentary Secretary will be interested to know that it was a project which took place in Birmingham. There were 32 young volunteers on the project, living in a church hall and sleeping on the floor. They went out each day in small groups redecorating the homes of elderly and handicapped people.
After one group had completed a job, I witnessed what frequently happens. An old lady came on to the pavement to try to thank the volunteers and in doing so broke down and cried. This may sound sentimental, but people with experience of this work know that this is something frequently witnessed by these young people. When they think about it and analyse why the old lady was unable to express her thanks articulately and broke down and cried they realise that it is perhaps the first time for weeks, months and even years, spontaneous interest has been shown in her by young people who want to share her life—not simply by the devoted professionals who carry the main responsibility on behalf of society.
I went back to base that evening and a discussion was taking place. A volunteer from Scandinavia said that Britain claimed to be a modern society. He asked how it was that in our second largest city people suffered these shameful physical conditions. A volunteer from Spain said that while he realised that standards might be bad by Northern European standards, they compared favourably with conditions of many people in his country.
Perhaps the most telling comment of all came from a volunteer from Asia. He was speaking for many young people from abroad willing to participate in projects with British youngsters, and also

for young British volunteers working in their holidays abroad. He said that he found it difficult to get to know Britain. He was taken to tea parties given by the well-meaning British Council, where there were 30 overseas students and two or three British hosts. He had found that on set tours he could only look at Britain's surface. This project had showed him Britain below the surface—he had seen our seamy side—and he had come to understand us so much better. He regarded Britain in a completely new light. He had been able to contact us in a way he had not before thought possible. He said that he came from a country where millions suffered far worse standards than those he had seen on the project, but that in our modern community he could not understand how the family had come to mean so little, especially to elderly and handicapped people living in poor conditions, alone forgotten and completely isolated.
The point I am making is that in these projects young people lose their inhibitions and national identification. They look at a problem together and analyse a situation in a completely uninhibited way. They find a common concern. I hope that as the Department encourages the development of community service by young people—and I know that it will—it will give high priority to supporting the development of this work in an international context.

8.50 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): I agree with the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) that the debate has produced even at this hour, a very fascinating discussion on some of the problems which affect the youth service and sport. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) asked what the objectives of the youth service are. Although I ought not to spell these out in great detail at this hour of the morning, I agree that the youth service is not a first aid service, a net to catch all those who may be falling from society. It is much more positive than that. It is concerned with the development of the whole personality of individuals in our society and that point of time in their lives when they need help in reaching maturity and in finding a sense of maturity themselves.
I subscribe to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Wokingham and others that the present generation of young people is as idealistic and as fine a generation as we have ever had. So it ought to be. If it were not so, we would have wasted much effort and money on education services. I rejoice that this is so.
I well take the point of the hon. Member for Wokingham that, amidst all the references to students at the L.S.E. and to youth in general—from time to time one has to deal with activities with which one does not entirely agree—the point must be made that these are the activities of a very small minority. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that in a recent speech, which I think he was possibly charging me with, I used those exact words, although I am sorry to say that they did not find their way into the newspapers.
The hon. Gentleman asked me some technical questions about the effect of the Selective Employment Tax on the youth service. I think that I came to the House prepared to deal with almost every subject on the youth service, but, to be honest, not the effect of this tax. I will consult my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the points the hon. Gentleman raised, though it seemed that he was mentioning a real hardship which would apply in the first instance to some of these youth charities but that after the first rebate had been paid to them this might well ease itself.
The hon. Gentleman asked me in the main for a progress report and a review of the situation within the youth service. I have just reconstituted the Youth Service Development Council, which is there to advise me. I have decided since, as the responsible Minister, I assumed the chair of this body that it should be brought more into the Government's confidence. It should be asked to consider much more deeply than had been the case the problems of the service. I got the impression when I inherited the chair that the Council had been far too superficial in the things it had been looking at. Since I wanted the Council to do this fundamental job, I thought it right to make it the permanent reviewing body for the service as a whole.
Hon. Members are correct that, for the service as a whole, not only is this a time

of tremendous change, but there is a great need for ever-changing thought about the role of young people and the role of the service to meet it. This is a very difficult thing, because the voluntary bodies which have done great work—I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman said about this; I have over the years played no small part, I hope, in voluntary bodies and organisations in service—tend to get institutionalised. Although one expects them to give a lead in pioneering new techniques and ideas, they do not always do so. They started in a revolutionary frame of mind, but perhaps they are like most of us in the House. We start off as revolutionaries, but we do not often end our careers as such.

Mr. Judd: Would my hon. Friend agree that this most interesting change to which he has referred was pioneered entirely by voluntary organisations?

Mr. Howell: Oh, yes, I think that many changes are pioneered by voluntary bodies. I am coming back to his fascinating speech very shortly, and because I believe that there is a need for constant re-thinking about our position I have decided that the Development Council should be the permanent body and that, from its 18 members, we should establish working groups to look at specific problems. In this way we can make the greatest contribution to new thinking in this service.
The first body set up was concerned with the opportunities for young people to give service in society. This has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) and, knowing his great interest in the exciting field of the youth service, I am sure he appreciates this service by young people. The committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Gordon Bessey reported about a year ago to the effect that it was thought that there was an opportunity to have youth service groups throughout the whole country, perhaps with the aid of the Government.
I am ready with proposals, having taken very fully into account those organisations which have pioneered this sort of work, and I am about to consult the trades unions and the local authorities. All I say this morning is very much in line with the philosophy of my hon. Friend the Member for


Portsmouth, West. It is that there needs to be tremendous variety. He said that variety was essential and I agree with him to the full. We must remember that each member of the service is an individual, and each will be attracted by a different type of service. For instance, some will choose work in hospitals; some in helping the old; some going overseas, and some working with immigrants. There will be no lack of variety of approach, and my proposals are designed to create opportunities where none exist at present. They are designed to do it by helping the existing organisation to expand so that their expertise can be made even more widely available to those youngsters who wish to contract for this sort of work.
I shall certainly consider the idea of having a round table conference, as has been suggested, at a suitable time, and I shall bring in the organisations which are in the field. The second group, which I think will report this coming weekend, has worked on immigration in relation to the Youth Service; how to help immigrants in this country to become established in our society, and the role which the Youth Service can play. Lord Hunt has been in the chair, and, as one who served on the Albemarle Committee, I can say that I understand that the Hunt Report on Immigration, is longer on the first draft than the whole of the Albemarle Report. I believe in brevity and expedition. I am now having a second go at trying to cut down the size of the report so that it appears in manageable proportions. I think that shall all be grateful for that.
The other question which has been raised is the age range. This touches on the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Toxteth about what we want the Youth Service to do. The present Youth Service age range of 14 to 20 is quite unreal. I accept much of what my hon. Friend said about the need to go into the schools. One of the reasons that we are possibly failing in the Youth Service is that we are trying to do too much in one age band—14 to 20. Young people at the top end of that age range find very little identity with the people at the bottom end of that age range. It therefore seemed to me that both ends

of the Youth Service age range should be examined.
I have one committee under Mr. Fair-bairn, Deputy Director of Education for Leicestershire, looking at the Youth Service in relation to the schools. It has just started its work. It will look at the use of school buildings and the relationship of the Youth Service with the formal educational services. In particular, we are looking at the age of 14 as the minimum age and considering whether it should go down, at what age the Youth Service should commence and its relationship to formal education.
When the Hunt Committee has completed its work in a month or so, I shall hope to have a further working group under the chairmanship of Mr. Fred Millson, Senior Lecturer in youth work at the West Hill Training College. It will consider at the top end of the Youth Service age range the relationship of the Youth Service to the community as a whole. This will automatically bring into question the ending of the age range at 20. If, as might well happen, one of these committees reports that youth work should start before 14 and the other reports that it should not be formally regarded as ended at 20 and therefore there should be an expansion of the service, an interesting situation would arise which should be welcomed. I am sure that within the Youth Service band there must be two levels of people to whom we try to give service—between, say, 12 and 16 and then from 17 onwards. This would mean two distinctly different levels of service.
This allows me to make an interesting point which I wanted to make about the sponsorship of youth clubs and particularly boys' clubs. I have great regard for the boys' clubs work which is performed in our society. It is increasingly plain that much of their work is specifically for boys—which is to say the obvious. By that I mean that it ceases to attract young men of the late teenage group. It is extremely important that the Youth Service should have an attraction for them.
I was interested in what was said about the sponsorship of youth clubs. We can only authorise building projects for youth clubs which appear in a local authority's priority list. The boys' club movement


in London has done reasonably well over the years. We would all like it to do better. Why is it that businessmen and sponsors can easily be found to create clubs to keep boys off the streets when we cannot find anybody interested in keeping girls off the streets? That is a real problem because the National Association of Youth Clubs, which is a large voluntary organisation dealing with mixed club work, does not operate in the same way as the Federation of Boys' Clubs and does not go in for building capital projects but sees itself more as a servicing organisation. There is a great gap.
I think that that is why local authorities are more and more moving into the field. That is the only way in which we shall get clubs for girls established and, in particular, have mixed clubs working. It is self-evident that one of the reasons one sees a great falling off in the number of boys over the age of 17 and 18 in boys' clubs is that there are no girls there. Bringing boys and girls together in a good, wholesome atmosphere seems to me to be one of the great needs of our society and one of the tasks of a relevant youth service.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the building programme which, in my recollection, has been running at about £4½ million a year. We expect it to rise to about £5 million a year and be maintained at that level.
A question concerning me at present about the future of the youth service is what our priority should be. Given that we have only a limited amount of resources for the service, do we continue to put them into bricks and mortar, or should there be a change into the servicing organisations and the servicing of young people in many ways, as I was very properly urged to do by my two hon. Friends? Inevitably we must reach the conclusion that perhaps rather less of our resources should go into bricks and mortar and that more should go into the training and quality of youth leaders, which the hon. Gentleman also asked for, and the general servicing of youth.
The Albemarle Committee said that it hoped that we should have 1,300 full-time youth leaders by 1966 and I am glad to tell the House that that target was reached, mostly thanks to the Leicester Training College, which provides a one-

year course. The hon. Gentleman asked whether a one-year training course is enough, and suggested that we should look at two-year courses. I agree, and I go further and say that we must consider the question of three-year training courses. I am making sure that the Department considers that. If I am right about the general principles I suggested earlier, it seems to me that if we change the emphasis within the service we need the youth leader to become a real professional in every sense. His or her status as a professional depends considerably on the amount of training he or she has had, and on how that training compares with that in other professions, such as teaching, the social services and so on. We are beginning to do a great deal of thinking about this in the Department. It is only at a very early stagy and if any organisation wish to make a contribution to our thinking on the matter we shall be happy to see them.
I was asked about school youth wings for both sport and the youth service. That is very dear to our hearts, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has initiated new thinking in the Department about the whole question of use of capital resources. I have made speech after speech—and am glad of the opportunity again today—saying that as a nation we cannot afford to have expensive capital equipment, i.e., our schools, school buildings, gymnasiums and playing fields, standing idle for so much of the year. As far as possible we want to see that that does not happen in the future, that communal parts of our schools such as the halls, gyms and dining rooms are built in such a way that they can be used by the community as a whole while the class room blocks and so on are located away from these facilities.
I move now to the questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). He put eighteen points and I shall do my best to deal with them, although rapidly. They were searching questions. He referred to the schools athletics championships. He will be delighted to know that one of the things I was determined upon when appointed Minister with responsibility for sport was that school sports organisations should be encouraged. Now, for the first time, not only can we pay tribute


to the tremendously enthusiastic band of school teachers who give their service voluntarily week in and week out to make school sports successful for hundreds of thousands of scholars but at long last are to give some financial help to them as well.
Many teachers have not only given their services but have done so out of their own pockets. In athletics, we have been able to make a grant of £300 a year in the last two or three years towards their administrative costs and if they want to put proposals for full time secretaries of school sports organisations we shall be happy to consider them, as we do all other suggestions from school sports organisations.
The same applies to national coaches. This is a thorny subject. The schools themselves believe it more important to have the expertise of the teacher rather than the expertise of the sports coach but where one could combine the two obviously this would be a sensible arrangement. We are also encouraging the school sports organisations for the first time in their international work and the Department is considering the possibility of a grant to help to send an English international team to Florence.
My hon. Friend asked many questions about the senior athletics and the A.A.A. He had read an excellent article by Chris Brasher in The Observer which raised many of these points. But perhaps I should say a collective word about them. These are really not a matter for me or for the Government. There is a delicate balance to be maintained between the Government's initiative in sports needs and where the rights of the governing bodies of sport begin.
This often gets me into trouble. I am often asked, for example, to deal with things like apartheid in sport, about which I have the strongest feelings and where I would like to do something. But I am not the dictator of sport or the director of the 200 governing bodies and I have no more right to tell them what they must do than any other citizen. I have to be careful to keep the delicate balance I have described. My job is to encourage sports organisations in every way I can to make themselves more efficient and to

follow reasonable policies but 1 cannot go beyond that point.
The A.A.A., with some help and encouragement from the Government, has decided that the best way to look at its many problems would be to appoint its own committee of inquiry and I have shown my support by agreeing to finance the servicing of that inquiry—paying for secretarial help, and so on—and giving some advice when asked about its scope.
The Committee will look into all questions of sponsorship, the relationship of women's athletics to men's athletics and whether we want three athletics organisations or a United Kingdom organisation. It will look at all aspects of sport and it would be wrong for me now to express opinions on which a high-powered committee is about to begin work on the subject.

Mr. Dalyell: I have been talking widely to athletes concerned. Would my hon. Friend make it clear that the Government, because they give a grant to the A.A.A., have no direct responsibility for its actions? Many athletes feel that because of this financial relationship there is some Governmental responsibility.

Mr. Howell: I am glad of the opportunity to make it clear that, although we give a large grant to the Amateur Athletic Association, we accept no direct responsibility for anything which it does; nor do we wish to do so. It is exactly the same point as the M.C.C. in respect of Basil D'Oliviera.
In the last two years, the relationship between the Government and the sports bodies has improved vastly, and now there is a very real partnership. But it is not a partnership in which we want to dominate. We try to help stimulate and encourage sports bodies, but we have no responsibility for their decisions in respect of sporting judgments.
Another point which has been raised is that of multi-purpose sports centres and regional projects, and there is the associated point about all-weather floodlit pitches. We are very keen on multipurpose indoor sports centres. One of the fascinating features about which I have been arguing is that, in spite of our weather, we make no provision for sport to be played in the dark nor on days when it is wet.
For several months of the year, we know that it will get dark early, and we have a lot of rain. In spite of that, we do not provide all-weather pitches, we do not floodlight them, and we close our public parks for most of the year at the very times when people coming from factories, shops and offices want to use the facilities which exist there. There is a lot of pioneering work to be done. If we think of the need for a recreational leisure service, many of the decisions of individual local authorities and sports bodies will begin to fall into place in respect of those matters.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian mentioned, there is difficulty about grant aiding regional projects. He quoted the views of the Sports Council, in its first Annual Report. I am well aware of that difficulty. I want regional sports projects, and it follows, therefore, that is a matter which concerns me.
I come finally to the Commonwealth Games which will be held in Edinburgh in 1970. I am sure that the House will agree that this will be a sporting festival of tremendous international importance. I went to the last Commonwealth Games and, apart from the quality of the sports which I say, I was extremely impressed by the bringing together of all the nations of the Commonwealth, united in this purpose.
I said to many people who asked for my views that, when one looked at all the Commonwealth countries marching into the stadium, it was the first time that the Commonwealth became a living reality. There they all were, assembled on the field of sport. One of the great justifications of sport is that it unites the nations, and far more international good comes from sports than the odd difficult situation which is created.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland recently met the Edinburgh authorities, and he and I will keep in touch. At an earlier stage, with representatives of the Sports Council, I went to Edinburgh to look at various sites which were available. We are determined to see that the Games are successful, and we have every confidence that they will be.
We have been able to take two major decisions which will help to ensure the

success of the Games, and those were the two which were given priority by everyone on the spot. The first was that the provision of residential accommodation in the university should be advanced in the building programme. That has been done, so that there is no doubt that the wonderful campus of Edinburgh University will be available for the Commonwealth athletes to use.
Secondly, there will be a special catering block. This was due to be built in the 'seventies, but we have been able to bring it forward to next year, and it will be ready in time for the Games because we know that the Commonwealth Games Committee attaches great importance not only to the success of the Games, but to mixing socially, and all that follows from that, and providing communal recreational and feeding arrangements. Thus, the two decisions which we have been able to take will be of considerable help.
I think that this has been an extremely useful debate, even at this hour. It has been extremely wide-ranging, and I hope that the House will forgive me if I have missed one or two points, but I have done my best to deal with all the matters that were raised.

RAILWAYS (WEMBLEY—MARYLEBONE)

9.21 a.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to you and to the House for being able to raise a problem which concerns some of my constituents, even at this late hour, and I promise to be as brief as I can. I thank both the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries, one of them for being here to answer the debate.
The subject of the debate is British Railways' service between Wembley stations and Marylebone. The two stations are Wembley Hill and Sudbury and Harrow Road on the London Midland Region of British Railways, and such trains as do stop at these two stations are those which provide the diesel service between High Wycombe and Marylebone. There are only five up-trains in the morning which stop at each of these two stations between 7.14 and 9.41, and one of these was introduced, I think,


on 6th March, which was a slight improvement.
Of the evening down trains, five stop at Wembley Hill between 3.57 and 7.27 and six at Sudbury and Harrow Road between those same times, but for those commuters who travel in the opposite direction there are five down trains which stop at each station, and only 3 up-trains which do so in the evening.
On Saturdays there is no up-service stopping at these two stations after the train at 9.19 a.m. from Wembley Hill, and no down service after 1.26 p.m. from Marylebone, so no one who lives in London and works in Wembley—and there may be some who do—can get home by this route on Saturday mid-day or in the afternoon. On Sundays there is no service at all.
I know that the number of passengers using this line is small, but it is small wonder that this is so when the service is so infrequent, and nothing is done to advertise it. I suggest that the service could be improved without much inconvenience to passengers from other stations further up the line.
The journey from High Wycombe to Marylebone takes 61 minutes according to the timetable by trains that stop at all stations. It takes from 52 to 54 minutes by the trains which miss four stations, including the two Wembley ones, and it takes only 48 minutes if it misses five stations, so High Wycombe has a separate non-stop service to Paddington.
South Ruislip and West Ruislip, the other stations on this line, are also on the Central Line of London Transport, and Sudbury Hill station of British Railways on this line is very close to Sudbury Hill station on the Piccadilly tube, and the line has an hourly service in off-peak hours, missing all five stations between West Ruislip and Marylebone.
I suggest that it would add only two or three minutes if each train stopped at Sudbury, or Harrow Road, or Wembley Hill, plus possibly one other station at which it does not now stop. It would help particularly if one or two late evening trains from Marylebone stopped at these two Wembley stations.
There are five trains after the 7.16 in the evening, which is the last train which

does stop. All these go non-stop to West Ruislip, taking from 49 to 52 minutes to reach High Wycombe. Although they all stop at the same stations, there is a time lag of two or three minutes between them, but this small gap does not matter.
I have visited all these stations in the past week. Sudbury and Harrow Road has two platforms, waiting rooms, lavatories and part of the platform is covered over. There is gaslighting, dating from the time that the line was built 60 or 70 years ago. Wembley Hill has two open platforms without a building or cover of any kind. I understand that they were demolished last year because of maintenance costs. The path from the road to the up platform is also uncovered. The main footbridge and two of the three station entrances are closed. Another footbridge to the east of the station is concrete and therefore fairly modern, but has no roof. The roof was presumably taken away some time ago, but the supports are still in position.
Therefore, any luckless passenger for Marylebone who alights from the front of the down train has to walk the length of the platform, cross the footbridge, walk part of the up platform and up a slope before reaching the exit to Wembley Road—all without any cover. At the foot of the steps leading to the bridge, he is greeted by a British Rail advertisement, saying: "You Are Now Closer To The Heart Of England." But that is very little encouragement in these surroundings.
There are some buildings, including lavatories, at the top of the up side, but whether one could wait there without risk of missing one's train is a matter of some doubt. Outside the station, on British Rail property, is a derelict house with its bottom storeys boarded up and is upper windows broken. It is not more than 40 years old, and it is a shame that it should not have a tenant when there is such a shortage of houses in the neighbourhood.
I know that few passengers use the line, but what has been done to obtain more? After all, the excellent London Transport and British Rail Services from other Wembley stations are hopelessly overcrowded in peak hours. Why not try to siphon some traffic from Wembley Park to Wembley Hill and possibly some


from Stonebridge Park and from Sudbury Town on the Piccadilly line to Sudbury and Harrow Road on British Railways, which would relieve some of the congestion on these routes?
Marylebone is only 11 or 12 minutes from Wembley Hill and 13 to 16 minutes from Sudbury and Harrow Road, depending on whether it stops en route at Wembley Hill. Marylebone is on the Bakerloo Tube. Why not issue through season tickets to underground stations, improve the service and advertise? There is a bridge over Harrow Road outside the station which needs painting. Why not have an advertisement on it along the lines of:
Marylebone in 15 minutes. Seasons Available to Every Station on the London Transport System."?
Garish colours might offend the local planning authority, but it might be suitable to have light lettering on a dark brown background, as British Rail uses for its other advertisements. Similar advertisements could be placed in local shops, and why not a house-to-house distribution of leaflets to advertise the service?
The track and the space which it occupies are wasted in Wembley except in the mornings and evenings. There are four lines where it passes through each station, each platform being on a loop line which allows the train to stop, if necessary, in the station to be overtaken by an express. What is saved by not stopping more trains here? British Rail should pull up its socks and do something about the service. One of my constituents describes it as the worst train service in London. Wembley Hill Station must, from the point of view of lack of amenities, be one of the worst stations in the world. It is a reminder of what one probably found on the Canadian prairies or in the Australian outback in the early days of the railways. It must be the only station in use in Britain which has no cover of any kind from the elements.
This station is a disgrace to British Railways. Some cover, even if only of the carport type, should be provided over the platforms, footbridge and ramp leading down to the platforms. The service should be made more frequent and it should be advertised. More use should be made of this main line which leads to

a convenient London station and the least crowded terminal of all London terminals.

9.30 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): This is a well-known confrontation. It is the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) versus the Ministry of Transport. I very much admire the hon. Gentleman's assiduity. I wish I could say the same about his sense of reality.
The hon. Gentleman and his constituents know that these issues are matters of management for either the British Railways Board or the London Transport Board. If not, then they are matters about the quality of service, in which case they can be raised with the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, which provides the appropriate machinery.
I will go over the facts, and in view of the hon. Gentleman's allegations I trust that close attention will be paid to these remarks. In 1962 the London Midland Region introduced as an experiment an hourly off-peak shuttle service between West Ruislip and Marylebone. This was intended particularly to benefit passengers wishing to travel from or to four suburban stations; Wembley Hill, Sudbury and Harrow Road, Sudbury Hill and Northolt Park. The experiment completely failed and very few people used the service.

Sir R. Russell: It was not advertised.

Mr. Swingler: It is well known in the district that this hourly off-peak service came into existence, but very few people used it and, as a consequence, it was withdrawn in September, 1964. The matter was raised with the T.U.C.C., which considered the complaints of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and all the evidence about the service was put to the T.U.C.C. during 1965 and 1966.
After careful study of all the evidence, the T.U.C.C. came to the conclusion that the decision to withdraw the service was justified for three reasons. The first was that very few people had used the off-peak shuttle service—only, on average, 2.3 passengers per train per station. The second was that any adjustment of the timetable to provide more stops at these stations would have meant slower journeys for the larger number of passengers living further out on the line to High


Wycombe. The third was that there were alternative services by underground, on the Piccadilly, Metropolitan and Bakerloo lines, and by local bus services. 
For these reasons it was agreed by the appropriate body, the T.U.C.C., that this service should be withdrawn because it was beneficial to only a very small number of people but very inconvenient and discomforting to a larger number of people who were making the longer journey. This being the position, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can reasonably complain that the London Midland Region did not try to experiment with a better service for these areas. The experiment was tried for a considerable period, but experience proved that very few people required or were prepared to use it and that a larger number of people were being discomforted in the process.
Of course, my right hon. Friend is trying by every means in her power to improve public transport in London. That is a major reason for the London Bill we hope to introduce in the next Session of Parliament. But in London, as elsewhere in the country, I am afraid there will always be circumstances in which a small number of users will have to sacrifice services especially convenient to them in the interest of a larger number of users who want faster through services.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee this day.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND (CLERGY PENSIONS)

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu (Second Church Estates Commissioner): I beg to move:
That the Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure, 1967, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
The task allotted to me this morning will not take long. This Measure is to remove an irritant which operates at present in the minds of a great many clergymen in their pensions arrangements. Opportunity has also been taken in this Measure to improve the principal Measure relating to clergy pensions. Until this Measure becomes law, each clergyman has to pay £9 a year to provide a £50 pension for widows and dependants, although 20 per cent. of clergymen do not leave widows and 30 per cent. do not leave dependant relatives. That irritant is proposed to be removed by this Measure.

Question put and agreed to.

HARPUR TRUST, BEDFORD

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

9.38 a.m.

Mr. Brian Parkyn: Mr. Speaker, I am most grateful for this opportunity to raise in this House the subject of the Bedford Charity, now usually called the Harpur Trust. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for being present to reply.
I wish also to declare an interest, because the hon. Member for Bedford is ex officio a governor of the Harpur Trust, but I am introducing the subject as a Member of Parliament on behalf of my constituents to whom this is a matter of great concern, and not as a governor.
Although letters patent were issued by Edward VI in 1552 empowering the town of Bedford to found a school and hold property which would yield revenues for its maintenance and for certain other charitable purposes, the actual foundation of the grammar school, later to become


Bedford School, dates from 1566. In that year, Sir William Harpur, an Alderman of the City of London, by deed of gift, conveyed to "the Mayor, Bailiffs, Burgesses, and Commonalty of Bedford", 13 acres and one rood in Holborn, and made it subject to control by New College, Oxford.
This gift was to establish a "free and perpetual school within the said town of Bedford". Over the years, of course, there has been a good deal of heated discussion over the meaning of the word "free". Some held and still hold that it meant free in the sense of non-fee-paying to the children of the citizens of Bedford. Others maintain that it meant free in the sense that the school would be independent of the Church.
In all probability, however, it meant free in the sense of being free from tolls and tithes in pura et libera elimosina. Several subsequent Acts of Parliament confirmed that "free" meant non-fee-paying for Bedford-born boys, but as a result of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, and of an adverse report by a Commissioner, Mr. R. S. Wright of the Endowed Schools Commission a new constitution for the Harpur Trust was ratified by Queen Victoria in 1873. Since it was set up as an ad hoc educational trust it has gone from strength to strength, and has made Bedford a national centre of education. It has also pioneered girls' secondary education, and as early as 1818 founded a national school.
The Trust now administers two independent schools—Bedford School and Bedford High School for Girls—and two direct grant schools—Bedford Modern School and the Bedford Dame Alice Harpur School for Girls. It may be of interest to say that none other than the redoubtable Erskine May was educated at Bedford School, a pupil between 1826 and 1831 under the famous Dr. Brereton.
There are 31 governors of the Harpur Trust, and I would like to discuss the reason for their appointment as it will illustrate rather more clearly the point I am trying to make. Five governors are ex officio, 14 are nominated for a period of five years, and 12 are representative and are appointed for three years. The five ex officio governors include the Mayor of Bedford, the Lord Lieutenant of Bedfordshire, and the

Members of Parliament for Bedford, Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) and Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts). The 14 nominated governors include two appointed by New College, Oxford, one by the Lord Chancellor, one by Cambridge University, one by London University, one by the permanent staffs of each of the four Trust schools, one from the parents of day scholars at each of the four Trust schools and one by the parents of the scholars of the Harpur secondary school. The 12 representative governors include six appointed by the Bedfordshire County Council and six appointed by the Bedford Town Council though up to 1946 seven governors were elected, one for each ward in Bedford by direct ward elections, representing the town, and I think that the 1946 change was most regrettable, and, indeed, regressive.
The income from the Trust is nowadays about £100,000 a year. This is divided into 11 parts, of which 4/11ths go to the two independent schools, 4/11ths to the direct-grant schools, 2/11ths to the former elementary education account and 1/11th, the eleemosynary element, for the support of almshouses.
The 2/11ths part that goes to the former elementary education account is mainly to provide special assistance to boys and girls who are resident in the borough of Bedford and have for not less than two years attended county or voluntary schools. It is to provide scholarships, help towards foreign travel, coaching in athletics and clothing, tools, instruments and books to enable beneficiaries on leaving school to assist their entry into a profession, trade or calling.
In spite of great local opposition, the Minister of Education on 2nd August, 1956, allowed this elementary account to be partly used, not for the ordinary boys and girls of Bedford for whom it was intended, but further to finance the four Trust schools. A sum of £15,000, representing accumulations of interest appropriated for the elementary account, was transferred to the four Trust schools. Since that time the process has continued, and in 1963 no less a sum than £5,825 was transferred to the grammar schools; in 1964, £6,507, and in the year 1965–66, £7,075. These large sums of money are the rightful heritage of the ordinary children of Bedford, yet they were used


further to subsidise the four schools of the Harpur Trust.
In the division of the two portions of the 4/11ths to the four Trust schools there is an extraordinary clause in the Trust Deed which stipulates that the money should not be shared equally between the two girls' schools and the two boys' schools. It is a clause which astonishes someone like myself, who believes fervently in the equality of the sexes, because it states, and I quote
but reckoning for this purpose three boys as earning the same amount as five girls.
The good work of the Harpur Trust and the fine academic record of the Trust schools cannot be belittled. Owing to their existence, Bedford had the best schools in the country—for the minority privileged to be able to gain entry to them. For the others, until recently, Bedford had no county secondary school to prepare students for university entrance; for these—the majority of the boys and girls in my constituency—Bedford therefore had a poor standard of education.
A high percentage of places, well over 50 per cent., are offered to the county in the two direct grant schools, and a much smaller number in the two independent schools, but even so the percentage of boys and girls who were able to be successful in the 11-plus examination was well below the average for the country as a whole.
During the past five years the local education authority has built one school, the Pilgrim School, which has at last improved the chances of our boys and girls receiving a higher secondary education. Following Circular 10/65 issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, the Bedfordshire County Council considered the reorganisation of schools in Bedfordshire and last year submitted their proposals to my right hon. Friend.
I feel that it would be improper of me at this stage to discuss these proposals in detail, but two essential facts stand out, particularly in so far as the proposals affect the Borough of Bedford and the surrounding area. Either Bedfordshire will need a massive special grant urgently in order to build comprehensive schools, or some of the schools of the Harpur Trust will have

to be brought into the comprehensive system. If that were done some means of selection would be necessary unless all the places in the Trust schools, or at least in the direct grant schools, are made available to the county.
The Newsom Report specifically rejects the assumption on which the 11-plus examination is based—that intelligence is a given and stable factor in a child's make-up which can be tested. The Report says
Intellectual talent is not a fixed quantity with which we have to work, but a variable one that can be modified by social policy and educational approaches.
Circular 10/65 states
It is the Government's declared objective to end selection at 11-plus and to eliminate separatism in secondary education.
I applaud and warmly support that policy, and I hope that a way will be found to abolish selection in Bedford.
The governors of the Harpur Trust are all distinguished men and women of the greatest integrity, and I mean no disrespect to them when I say that in my view the running of the four Trust schools—as distinct from the Trust itself—should be transferred lock, stock and barrel to the L.E.A. At the very least I consider that the running of the two direct grant schools should be transferred wholly to the L.E.A.
In this way the boys and girls of Bedford will be able to claim their birthright, and I suspect that this would fulfil the real intentions of Sir William Harpur, were he alive today.
I do not pretend to offer a simple solution to the complex and unusual problem of education in Bedfordshire. We must be fair to all those who have endowed these four schools so generously. We must be fair to Sir William Harpur and to the vision and hopes and faith that he had. We must be fair to the governors of the Harpur Trust over the years who have tried to administer the the affairs of the Trust wisely and generously. We must be fair to the teaching staff of the four schools and to the traditions which have been built up over generations in those schools. But overwhelmingly we must be fair to all the children of Bedford to see that each has the very best educational possibility to enable him, rich or poor, bright or dull, to learn how to live his life to fulfilment.
Confucius said, "In teaching there should be no class distinction". I believe that all hon. Members would support that sentiment. It is as true today as it was 2,500 years ago. When applied to the problems of Bedford and its very special problem of education, I believe that the whole structure of the Harpur Trust schools needs urgently to be reexamined.

9.51 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye to make a short intervention in this important debate. I do so as one who has benefited tremendously from the charity of the Harpur Trust. I obtained a free scholarship to the Bedford Modern School from a local education authority school and I have served as a governor of the Trust as a nominee of the Bedford Borough Council for the last 10 years.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Brian Parkyn) on giving a brief but full outline of the Trust's affairs, not unduly coloured by his own opinions and ideas. I point out to him that the foundation documents referred to
a free and perpetual grammar school
in Bedford. "Grammar school" still has a particular significance in those days. Erskine May, although not a resident of Bedford, was a private pupil and was so described by Dr. Brereton, the headmaster at that time.
I want briefly to refer to the assistance given to L.E.A. pupils under the 2/11 ths proportion and the fact that some of it is taken into the general school accounts of the four schools. This is carefully administered and all applications for assistance from L.E.A. pupils are met every year when it is reasonably just to do so. We grant tools for indentured pupils.

Mr. Parkyn: Would not the hon. Member agree that, nevertheless, there is insufficient publicity in Bedford as to the amount of this fund and what it could be used for?

Mr. Jones: I am sure that it is well known in educational circles and all heads of schools have the right to submit their pupils' names. The record of the governors in this matter is beyond question. We have in fact met substantial

fees for sporting activities and dancing when pupils have a special aptitude. In this way we have used the 2/11ths proportion of the foundation to meet all fair and just requests from L.E.A. schools.
I refer to the number of free places which are taken up particularly at the Bedford Modern School and the Dame Alice Harpur School. Of 905 children aged over 11 at the Modern School no fewer than 611 have free places and are supported by the L.E.A. and at the Dame Alice Harpur School of 730, 567 are there on free places. This shows the degree to which these schools are open to L.E.A. pupils.
As to handing over the schools lock, stock and barrel, they are for the benefit of children in Bedfordshire as a whole. This was the outcome of the decision following the Royal Commission which looked into the charity under the scheme of 1873. To hand over lock, stock and barrel would be a complete departure from the tradition of the Trust and would be very harmful to the schools for which special appeals have been generously supported by existing parents of children and children educated at them in the past.
With regard to the negotiations with the local education authority, the governors are willing to receive pupils on a wider range of ability than hitherto. We are anxious to agree a method of transfer from the local education authority to the four schools, although the local education authority has said that it does not wish to take up all the free places at Bedford School and Bedford High School for Girls and this is most regrettable. I am hopeful that we will reach a fair and acceptable solution with the local education authority and there is every indication that it will be possible.

Mr. Gwylim Roberts: Will the hon. Member not agree that unless my hon. Friend's suggestion is accepted and the school is taken over lock, stock and barrel there must be some selection, which is contrary to the Government's policy of comprehensive education?

Mr. Jones: I do not think that we have had any clear definition from the Department of what selection involves. There is evidence that settlements already approved by the Department, on agreements between local education authorities


and direct grant and independent schools support my view that there is a substantial amount of latitude in the arrangements that the Secretary of State is prepared to agree to.

9.58 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I believe that in his maiden speech my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Brian Parkyn) referred to Bedford and said that education was one of the main occupations there. In his speech he has shown the great contribution made over the years to education in Bedford by Sir William Harpur's Trust, and by what he says has indicated that the tradition of the trust is being carried on.
In 1946 the number in the sixth form was 344. By 1966 this figure had jumped to 760. The unusual thing about Bedford and Bedfordshire—in fact this situation is almost unique—is that a large proportion of the boys and girls who win grammar school places take up their places in direct grant schools or independent schools of the Harpur Trust.
It is worth mentioning the figures for October 1966. Out of the 132 boys entering the Bedford Modern School, 92 were from Bedfordshire and were L.E.A. places; two were from Northamptonshire, and 38 were fee-paying. The same applies to the places at the Dame Alice Harpur School for Girls. These are made up of 99 from Bedford and 4 from other L.E.A.s, the total being 103 out of 129 children.
Over and above this my hon. Friend has pointed out that 10 per cent. of the places in the independent schools: Bedford School, and Bedford High School go to local authority children. This means that about half of all the selective places are in these four schools and the other half are in the Pilgrim School.
It is difficult for me to comment as early as this because the Bedfordshire local education authority has not yet, as my hon. Friend will know, submitted the details of its scheme for secondary reorganisation. The negotiations with the two direct grant Trust schools are by no means completed.
Broadly speaking, our impression is that Bedfordshire is likely to put forward a scheme for middle schools—that is

schools for children from nine to thirteen. This would be significant for the direct grant schools who would take boys and girls at 13-plus and each of the direct grant schools are willing to offer 100 places to the local authority. The difficulty turns on the terms on which these boys and girls can enter direct grant schools.
Before going on to say a few more words about that, I want to turn to the position of the Bedford School and the Bedford High School. The debate, which has been well worth while, slightly anticipates a future situation, because both these independent schools have been asked by the Public Schools Commission, set up under Sir John Newsom, to answer a number of questions. I do not know what answers to the questions the schools are likely to give, and it would be wrong of me to anticipate the findings of the Commission on the position with regard to the two Bedford independent schools.
Turning from there to the direct grant schools, as I have already said they have offered up to 100 places each to the local education authority, as we understand it. The question is what range of choice ought to be permitted for these 100 places. I gather that it is right to say that the direct grant schools are both willing to fit in with a middle school curriculum if the L.E.A. decides that this shall be its final course and that, in addition, they are willing to widen the range of choice into the direct grant schools. But it is the object and policy of the Government that there shall not be selection in any form. Paragraph 39 of Circular 10/65 asks local authorities to study ways in which their direct grant schools may be associated with plans for secondary reorganisation.
I would point out also that at the present time there are no powers to take over direct grant schools as such and this matter has been left squarely with local education authorities, which can then pursue whatever arrangements they wish to make with the direct grant schools. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) has pointed out, in some parts of the country perfectly satisfactory arrangements have been made with direct grant schools, in one or two cases arrangements which have in fact effectively abolished selection.
Therefore, I do not think that I can take very much further, much as I would have wished to do so, the answer to my hon. Friend. I am grateful to him for airing this particularly tricky situation in Bedfordshire. Many of the points he has made about the obvious purposes of the foundations of these schools, as with the obvious purposes of the foundations of any historic trusts of this kind, are very well worth making; but he will appreciate that, with the negotiations still continuing between the local education

authority and the Trust, with our own detailed knowledge of the local education authority plans still waiting upon its submissions, and with the Newsom Commission sitting and not yet ready to draw up a report, it is very difficult for me to give a clearer answer to the useful points he has made at this point of time.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Ten o'clock a.m.